Home | About | Donate

Throwing the Base Under the Bus—and Other Deep Thoughts From NYT

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/08/throwing-base-under-bus-and-other-deep-thoughts-nyt

1 Like

A brand new NYT poll says voters in several swing states prefer a democrat who can work with the republicans. That is both troubling and sickening. What kind of “work” do these people expect to get done?

There is no working with Republicans. How many more decades have to go by before all realize that? (rehetorical, of course) There is also no convincing corporate media which seems to float their own disconnected mythology around any political races, the direction and structure of the script having been mandated by corporate.


The New York Times has never been as “liberal” as supposed. Even in the day. Though “in the day” the writers actually bothered to think and look at facts on the ground, in person. Fact alone can have an amazingly “liberal” flavor (if you’re of another “flavor”). They’ve long lost just about anybody who was worthwhile as a journalist. The corporate schema for the story script is all smothering.
About the only people who look to a liberal NYT are the GOP who want a handy-to-label news media organization as a handy villain for their own distracting, pretend dramas.


“Must seize the center.”

And give the Oligarchs and the MIC another 4 years to decimate the middle class with their agenda to expand the Empire any way they see fit.

Bad idea.


Hollar sez:
“It’s worth noting that, while (Melanye) Price claims Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro ‘seem most capable’ of appealing to young people, Bernie Sanders has a much higher percentage of under-30 supporters—and supporters of color—than the other leading candidates.”

Wait — that Sanders guy is still running? No, I don’t think so … the Times would certainly acknowledge if he was.


In the poll you’re talking about, if you add the numbers of Warren and Sanders up, the leftie candidate outpoll ByeDone and Mayo Pete Bog combined except in NC. So how the NYTimes gets away with the headline is beyond me:


That’s easy. It’s the same old “good cop/bad cop” game the duopoly has been playing for decades. It’s what keeps the moneyed elites fat and happy.

1 Like

The corporate media have but one concern: maximizing ratings and advertising revenues. They don’t give a wet fart about anything else.

1 Like

They will wait until next year to really go after him. Until them, they will minimize him by ignoring him. Remember, they will allow “progressive” ideas to float around, then demand that progressives move to the center lest Trump get re-elected. You know the script: “If you don’t vote for the Dem, you’re voting for Trump.” My reply to the Democratic Party is, “I won’t vote for a centrist, so if you put one up, you’re supporting Trump.” I reiterate: I will not vote for some corporate POS like Hillary or Joe or Pete. Here that, Dems? You want Trump re-elected? Run a “centrist”!


The hilarious thing (and by hilarious, I mean sad) is that when the centrist they run loses to Trump like Hillary did, they’ll blame liberals. So shit, if blaming us is their default excuse, I’m going to play my part.


If driving down the middle of the road were safe

There wouldn’t be a dotted line down it

1 Like

These people do exist, but I don’t think that we should overlook the probably that the NYT is inventing the numbers. We know they did in '16, and it is not as though any heads rolled over it.

As the late, lamented Molly Ivins said, “Ain’t nothin’ in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadillos”. Gawd, but I do miss her mordant wit and wisdom.


It’s good that FAIR still watchdogs these old traditional sources, but the time has probably come for an examination of better media. Somewhere around the turn of the millennium, the NYT and its dino cousins shifted from prior business models, that of selling the attentions of a readership to advertisers, to a release outlet for large institutions with PR problems.

We are not through the transition stage during which we have to dignify NYT and similar releases with a response, mostly because the more geriatric end of the voting spectrum still judges their readings on the basis of 20th century standards. But we ought to be looking for a way out of it, not just policing an institution that no longer principally produces news.

Certainly this applies, in general, to WaPo, CNN, Reuters, Fox, MSNBC, and the similar lot, despite whatever actual exceptions get worked into the system by individuals, and despite the sort of reporting that works like a clock that is right two times every day.

Someone at or around FAIR might have the data and skills to put this to a larger analysis, but that should include an analysis of the superior but of course imperfect sources that exist online. The population needs to update its skills around critical reading, and university and secondary studies, as usual, are running at least a generation behind. There is no shaming the NYT if it is only to be compared with CNN or WaPo or Fox, all of which are largely swimming in the same cess pool.

1 Like

You got that right. It is hilariously sad. Let’s just pre-blame Ralph Nader, Jill Stein and George Soros and move on.

1 Like

MeToo. in fact, I was thinking the other day that there should be a progressive movement to make such a warning statement well in advance. In any case, the only one who will assure my vote for a D is Sanders. If EW is the nominee, i’ll consider it…but it’s not a sure thing as I believe her to be not only inferior to Sanders but possibly an intentional tool to assure that Sanders doesn’t win on the 1st ballot and the D establishment can then pick the winner.

1 Like

I think you’re right. And in any case, they wouldn’t be shamed into any meaningful reform. The only thing that works with such institutions is economic pressure. Get their devoted readership to question more and be less credulous - and offer them better choices. Then perhaps, (despite the pleasure of having an actual newspaper to read with one’s coffee, etc), enough might decide not to support an institution that doesn’t share their values. That is why i use FB to post routinely good articles from sites like Common Dreams, CounterPunch, Jacobin, etc., and individual writer/analysts, like Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Ray McGovern, Caitlin Johnstone, et al. i feel a bit sad that my principles have contributed to the gradual demise of even local papers, but I can’t support those who actually work against my values and interests.

In any case, if they don’t clean up their act, they face the problem of an increasingly more concerned (younger) public - which as we saw in 2016 wouldn’t even vote for arguably the lesser of evils against Trump. So it’s only a matter of time before the New York Times either reflects the values and concerns of this younger constituency (and ends it’s sad practice of being a mouthpiece for spy agencies), or goes the way of all dinosaurs.

1 Like

As with the Democratic leadership, the NYT misrepresents the American people, who are more progressive than either on a range of important issues. Although it’s a couple years old, this list compiled by Peter Drucker is impressive. We’ve got a few elected officials who actually do speak for us, like Bernie and AOC. We need more.


The only thing the Democratic party will accomplish with this strategy is the permanent loss of roughly 2/3rds or more, of the electorate who has tended to vote Democratic over most of the last century.

1 Like