In response to calls from Robert and others to communicate with the NYT about my dissatisfaction with the paper's Trump coverage, I did submit a comment, got a reply, and responded. This is the rather lengthy, complete interaction, for everyone's consideration.
1) Comment to the NYT regarding a position of Public Editor, and the NYT coverage of Donald Trump:
I understand that currently the NYT has no position of Public Editor, and that this is under scrutiny. My opinion is that to the degree that a Public Editor would advocate for the Times to be more forward in addressing the unique circumstances now of a fascist (accurate characterization based upon actions and words) running for President, and the threat that poses to the country, I am very much in favor of creating such a position and filling it with a clear-eyed person who would advocate to favor openly acknowledging what Trump represents, and not dance around it and pretend that this is a race between two candidates who both respect law and the Constitution. The effort to be balanced and fair is accomplishing the opposite, tipping the balance in Trump's favor.
================================================
2) Reply from Aidan Gardiner, News Assistant, NYT:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for writing to us.
We are an independent newsroom that aims to provide our readers with a full picture of the world so they can make informed decisions about their lives. We do that by pursuing and presenting the facts without fear or favor.
It’s a bit tricky to directly address your concern because the term fascism is used by different people to refer to different things. Please know that even if our editors don’t liberally apply that term, they do take seriously neo-Nazis (and similar extremists, political violence (and threats of violence) and efforts to curtail the checks and balances that are key to democratic government.
Donald J. Trump has made clear that he wants to radically transform American government if he wins a second term. Our editors agree that coverage of these plans should be aggressive and given prominence in our report.
You may be interested in some of those articles:
The Retribution Presidency
Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent -- (front page)
Donald J. Trump and his allies are already laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump presidency, forging plans for an even more extreme agenda than his first term.
Donald Trump’s threats for another presidency are deeply alarming, historians and legal experts say.
Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power -- (front page)
Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First -- (front page)
A New Trump Administration Will ‘Come After’ the Media, Says Kash Patel
If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda -- (front page)
Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans -- (front page)
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025 -- (front page)
Trump Wanted to Fire Missiles at Mexico. Now the G.O.P. Wants to Send Troops. -- (front page)
Reasonable readers have argued that this should be the focus of our report every day, but we believe that we would then fail in our broader mission to address the varied questions and concerns of our wide and diverse audience.
One of those questions is, “How likely is it that Mr. Biden will thwart Mr. Trump’s re-election to the presidency?”
Americans expect a lot from their leaders and want assurance that they can live up to those expectations when we give them power. Voters have legitimate concerns about Mr. Biden’s age. (His peers are less strident.) Were we not to report on it and it became a deciding factor in the election, many readers would rightly turn to us and ask, “Why didn’t you let us know about this ahead of time?” In that way, his age seems newsworthy (as is Mr. Trump’s).
How best to distill the day’s events in these pages is always a judgment call, but know that these choices are made by thoughtful people, like our Standards team, which has grown to eight editors. Unlike the Public Editor, who worked independently in the Opinion department and gave retrospective analysis of newsroom missteps, our Standards editors work beside their newsroom colleagues and review their articles before publication.
But missteps persist even under the watchful eyes of the best editors because The Times remains, proudly, a human institution. (For what it’s worth, much has been made of our 2016 election coverage, but two Public Editors served during that time and Mr. Trump was still elected.)
"I don't think there can be a 'paper of record,'" said a former managing editor of ours, John Geddes. "The term implies an omniscient chronicler of events, an arbiter that perfectly captures the significance and import of a day in our lives. I don't work at that place. I work at a newspaper that exists in a world where there are constraints of time, resources and knowledge. The wonder of the paper is that knowing the everyday limits to our ambitions doesn't prevent us from trying to exceed them."
Minor pickiness, but really just supports your overall point even more thoroughly... Gardiner refers throughout his response to 'Mr. Biden' and 'Mr. Trump'. Trump who apparently understands the power of words way more than does the NYT always tries to get himself referred to STILL as 'President Trump.' It would be far more accurate of the NYT to refer to Biden with that title and to leave Mr. Trump as the regular 'ole citizen he technically is.
Gardiner's response regarding coverage of Biden's age "Were we not to report on it and it became a deciding factor in the election, many readers would rightly turn to us and ask, 'Why didn’t you let us know about this ahead of time?'”
Could also be said of Trump!! I'd say looming fascism is slightly more consequential right now than age. WTH
Not to mention, the Times has spent far more print space on President Biden age than on his positive leadership under the most adverse circumstances any president in recent history has experienced, most significantly the negative intervention and undermining of solid efforts like the recent bipartisan proposal for immigration reforms.
But if you want to compare and contrast the two of them based on age, Trump being a few years younger chronologically is immaterial as adults age very differently. Especially considering that Trump is definitely declining way quicker than Biden wrt his mental faculties. Trump has confused George W Bush with Jeb Bush, Obama with Biden, and now Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi for heaven's sake. He's also confused Orban and Erdogan, two of his favorite dictators and thinks WWII hasn't happened yet.
In fact, Jay Olshansky, a leading scholar on aging (who I interviewed on that subject a number of years ago) thinks that Biden may be a "super ager", someone whose biological aging is very slow, so that they maintain all their faculties to a very old age. Like my mother's cousin Ruth, who passed the driving test at age 96 "with flying colors" according to the instructor, and lived to be 104.
I would say that anyone who can fly to Israel twice in less than 10 days--for 36 hours in the air--and conduct business while there, 9 time zones away from his own, is an excellent candidate for a super ager.
That is a very important point. Travel is very difficult to adjust to, when it crosses time zones. We all know about how out of it one can feel after an international flight. The ability to adapt typically does decine with age, so for Biden to handle that is pretty amazing, frankly.
[THIS IS A COMPLETION OF A PREVIOUS PARTIAL POST MOMENTS AGO ABOUT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEWS DEPARTMENT OF THE NYT:
I replied TO MR. GARDINER OF THE NYT as follows:
Mr. Gardiner:
I thank you for your lengthy reply to my submission. I offer the following observations. I acknowledge that this is also rather lengthy, but I think these are worthwhile considerations, not tangential, and not a rant.
1) Fascism is well-defined and Trump's words and actions match the checklist perfectly. If the Times clearly defined the term, it would be able to use it in relation to Trump's words and actions and there would be no room for misunderstanding. As an absolute minimum, the adjective fascist should be applied to specific actions and wording, also well-defined.
2) Given the crystal clear explanation of Trump as a danger to democracy in the article "Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent", why would the homepage of today's online NYT mention Trump 18 times and Biden 5 times (of which only one headline is positive (EPA action to reduce pollution, mentioned twice), and three are horse-race articles that talk about “openings” and “shifts” and a “comeback”, clearly communicating deficiencies up to this point, and not any worthwhile accomplishments. Is the President not doing anything newsworthy that is serving the interests of the American people?
The 18 mentions of Trump included:
5 about his legal cases (two were entirely analysis - no specific event, and one of these was listed twice)
1 featured a "crackpot" legal theorist whose ideas would allow Trump to remain on the Colorado (and other) ballots
1 was in the weeds of whether a witness in Trump's fraud case perjured himself in that case, which is relevant only to the amount of damages the judge will impose
3 about his "MAGA Superpower" (same headline mentioned three times) - This editorial bewails that the average American knows "next to nothing" about what Trump's explicitly stated plans are for a second term - whose fault is that??? However, this was mostly polls and horse-race.
1 audio offering an explanation of his appeal, which never mentioned the word "cult" (an accurate and negative term, instead using the metaphor of "rock star", a positive metaphor).
1 Michelle Goldberg editorial about Poland resembling what Trump would turn America into. Sobering, yes.
1 Nevada GOP primary results (horse-race, talked about Trump as much as Haley, normalizing his campaign)
2 in the headline and subhead about Jimmy Kimmel's and other late-night hosts' clever one-liners, but they only talked about Trump
2 about the border and Biden's stance changing to "offense" (same headline mentioned twice) (Mr. Baker's article followed the false narrative claimed by Republicans that Biden wasn't doing anything about the border during his first three years, when the facts as to apprehensions and deportations are the opposite, and failed to point out that the increase in the number of undocumented border crossings is not a consequence of Biden's policies, and is a complex matter having to do with political instability, gang warfare and climate migrants)
1 about immigration and the "lump of labor fallacy" (an economic analysis from Krugman that lumped Trump in with Mitterand and Kurt Vonnegut as promoting an economic misconception)
None of these stories, not one, speaks to the issue of Trump as an existential threat to democracy, his fascist rhetoric and behaviors, his cult appeal, his calls for violence, etc., etc.
As a group, they normalize him as just another candidate.
In my view, an accurate rendering of the news would never normalize the pathology that is Donald Trump.
3) I searched the NYT for the phrase "Project 2025", and there were 10 articles in which it was mentioned, dating between 4/2023 and 1/29/2024. NOT ONE INCLUDED THE PHRASE "PROJECT 2025" IN THE HEADLINE, and not one of them was specifically about the document that lays it out.
I then searched for the phrase "Mandate for Leadership" (from the title of the 887-page book that lays out the policy recommendations for Project 2025), and I found TWO references to it. Neither names it in the headline.
One was in an interview by Ezra Klein (which was repeated in a list of book recommendations for the year 2023), where the reference is buried far, far down in the interview.
The other was in a 12/20/2023 editorial by Thomas B. Edsall called " 'I Am Your Retribution.' Trump Knows What He Wants To Do With a Second Term."
Even after a litany of petrifying possibilities that would be unreviewable and technically “legal”, according to numerous quoted legal experts, which in the aggregate would turn the U.S. into a near-totalitarian police state (have you read this article?), the strongest adjective Mr. Edsall could muster to describe this was "alarming."
It is no surprise that Americans know “next to nothing” about this frightening document.
In summary, it remains my view that the NYT has failed to sufficiently inform its readers about the nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses, or the explicit details of how this existential threat would play out and affect them.
I deeply appreciate whatever time and attention you are able to dedicate to our communication.
I have been writing my comments to the NYTs directly for the past 3 months. I have consistently asked journalists and senior editors to explain their anti-Biden bias. My favorite was the day the Times profiledon Pg 1 how well dressed the Trump kids were in their NY court appearances. The only story about Biden was his appearance in Ohio, celebrating the UAW's contract victory. That was on Pg 15. I suggested to the Times if an alien landed that day and read the Times, who would they think was POTUS? I didn't get an answer. IMO, Sulzberger and Kahn intentionally want the Times news dept. to continue its anti-Biden reporting so the paper is perceived as non-partisan. They don't seem to believe if Trump wins, the Times is up the creek.
I have no idea why the NYT is behaving about DJT the way it’s behaving. I really don’t care; I’m not their shrink. What I do care about is the NYT’s unprofessional ‘journalism’, especially with regard to DJT/Biden and Hamas/Israel.
Awesome - keep up the pressure! Question, did you get any replies that explicitly communicated that the reporting is being done to avoid accusations of being non-partisan? That is my take, as well, but I haven't seen that acknowledged by the paper, although perhaps it has been. Even so, how is being demonstrably "anti-Biden" non-partisan? It is the worse of partisanship - shooting one party down to appease irrational hypersensitivity and/or cynicism of the other (in a failed attempt to woo Trump supporters, who detest the NYT, as directed by their ~cult leader, who is planning an anti-democratic take-over and make-over of the country to turn it into Hungary as quickly as possible). That is doubly wrong. How do they think their journalists will fare when Trump weaponizes the Justice Department, if given the opportunity?
Gary. Right now the Times reporters are busy trying to trash Biden over the partisan hit job provided by the Hur Report. The report cleared Biden of breaking security laws but Hur went way off the reservation to criticize Biden's mental capacity. Hur should be fired tomorrow by Garland for dangerously exceeding his authority.
In any case, I want to organize a daily campaign of writing into the press pushing them to provide more balanced coverage of Biden for so many reasons.
If you're interested, let me know and we can talk by phone...thanks Merrill
Exactly. The Times seems lost in a shadow box of their own making. Or at least Sulzberger and Kahn's making. They run the place and make daily decisions about bees reporting.
The Times has about 10 million digital subscriptions and 1.5 million paper subscriptions. Maybe their current digital heavy business model requires a lot of controversy with readers to stay popular. Like yourself, I think it's utterly irresponsible journalism and has made a mockery of their mission statement "All the news that fit to print".
I try to do what I can to make sure that people who are aware of how dangerous Trump is don't get sidetracked by the counterproductive journalism that we see so often in the traditional media. So asymmetric. You essentially never see such an off-message article at Fox, and certainly not multiple times per day. We just have to stay on it - and not lose focus of what losing this election in November would mean.
I believe you took the all that information and laid it right straight down - I hope that Mr Gardiner “sees” what we see, or at least sees that we ‘see’ what they are doing.
PS I wish I had the skill and competence to write my thoughts down like that. Well done.
Karen, Mr Gardiner wants clicks and likes that drive profit. He has no duty to inform his readership. His duty is to “the business” of his owners. Joe Biden’s leadership successes don’t drive clicks and likes, controversy does. Its a short term type of thinking, the kind driven by quarterly reports and stock market value that drive his (their) bonuses
Dave, I agree with you that any corporate-owned media outlet has as profitability as a focus, and that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a mantra for news organizations because humans are more responsive to threat than they are to disinterested facts. In my view, another Trump presidency is the greatest threat Americans currently face. Therefore, handling Trump in a more gingerly fashion compared to Biden is not aligned with garnering clicks and likes based upon fear, threat and drama. In my view, it reflects a misconceived hesitancy in criticizing Trump in a doomed effort to avoid alienating conservative readership and preserve the now-pointless ability to claim the high road. I think they can claim the highest road if they are truly balanced and honestly report more consistently the fascist nature of Trump's effort to secure the presidency, which is driven not by a public interest of any kind, but a private interest (proving he is not a loser, being able to shut down federal prosecutions of him, and taking revenge on perceived "enemies", which means anyone who has demonstrated less than 100% fealty, etc.)
Be all that as it may, what would you recommend Karen do, in terms of her interest in participating in efforts to foster beliefs and behaviors that she considers as indicative of a healthy society?
Karen: You are very kind. I would disagree with you on one point - you DO have the skill and competence to communicate your thoughts in writing - you just did it. Anyone who can use the phrase "skill and competence", can write a letter to the editor (LTE). Perhaps you are doing this already, but Jessica Craven's blog, Chop Wood and Carry Water, allows for a variety of types of political participation about topics you likely care about, which requires minimal original composition, and is easy and quick. If you email me at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, I can email you back a tutorial on letter-writing, and I would encourage you to write letters to the editor to your local paper(s). Even a three-sentence, plainspoken letter that communicates your thinking contributes to the outlet's understanding of their audience, and that drives resource allocation (staff time, column real estate, etc.). If you wish, I can add your email to my informal newsletter list, which goes primarily to my Citizens Climate Lobby chapter members, but is growing. The writing style and analysis is similar to what you have already seen and covers a broad range of topics.
Thank you I must have received a similar response from the Times and although I too responded my response was less detailed and well documented as yours. Teasing the question more pointedly is akin to a reporter not letting up when the interviewee gives an elusive answer. A much needed service.
Good for you, Gary! Those wretched snails of an excuse for journalists enrage me daily. Much like their responses to the climate crisis, somehow they believe that if the dire predictions of a Trump return (in whatever form that occurs) will bypass them, personally and, I guess, institutionally. They'll just keep cranking out the comic-book headlines and go home to their families after the work day. They're nuts.
Since SCOTUS took out Roe and it’s impacted health care for over half the US Population (uh- women(last I checked we are more than 50%))- there isn’t one family that hasn’t been bypassed. If you have a mother, sister, daughter, female cousin …. You are not bypassed. today.
I am a woman and have a daughter, sister, granddaughter and of course understand the cruelty and horrific effects of Dobbs. Here's hoping the Dems will get a sweep of the federal gov't and can begin to remedy some of these atrocities...
Women don't want to die for Mike Johnson's religious beliefs. If the majority of the S. Ct. were Jehovah's Witnesses who don't accept blood transfusions due to their religious beliefs, would they implement that policy on the rest of us? What's the difference?
What's ironic is that the country was founded by a group of people from Europe who wanted the freedom to practice their religion outside of state control ... and we seem to have devolved into exactly what they were trying to escape.
Actually, many of the original colonies tried to suppress those who practiced religion differently – e.g., Roger Williams being forced out of Massachusetts, Maryland being established for Catholics.
What there was is what we experience today – a mixture of ‘tolerance’ and intolerance.
Thank you Gary. Where did you send the original communication? Was it a letter to the editor or something else? I certainly never get response to anything I submit!
If I recall, it was a blog post (I think it was Robert's, actually) that suggested writing to the NYT news department directly, as opposed to a letter-to-the-editor. Articles do have an option for direct feedback. The issue was whether the paper should have a Public Editor. Why I got a reply if others did not, I can only surmise was a consequence of their particular take on what I said. The reply was long and detailed, and likely not a one-off composition - the long list of links to other articles suggests this was a boilerplate response. Even so, I treated it as if it came personally from Aidan, and my reply, long and tortured as it was, was part rant, part writing exercise, part obsessiveness and partly for other folks I forward it to as motivation. Even if Adain looked at it briefly, it's still another little "ping", and the more the better. Did you see the online front page today - two articles about Biden; headlines include "concerns about his memory", "political nightmare" and "biggest political vulnerability." It's outrageous! This right-wing talking point has been roiling around for years and years - 5-years ago right-wing radio was claiming Biden was already far along in a dementia state - so ridiculous, and here the NYT is parroting it. It's literally as bad or worse as what is on Fox right now, with headline "Biden..not able to recall basic facts" and "did not remember when he was vice-president." OMG. Have they watched his recent speeches? I am an internal medicine physician - I have treated people with dementia for decades. I know how they talk and believe me, Biden is not experiencing cognitive decline worth talking about.
You may be getting more response than you realize. Editors have to decide how to allocate resources. If your letter is accompanied by numerous other ones, all of which also do not get published, it still makes it more likely that the letters editor will perceive that this is a topic of interest to readers, and will publish one or two letters about the article you wrote about.
Maybe it's not your letter in the paper, but you helped get that one in that is there. It's a numbers game. You may not be on stage, but you are in the crowd yelling, and that creates the excitement that the speaker needs to more likely reach people such that they decide to become an activist.
Appreciate the info.Your comments also made me realize I should be using my own experience when countering “Biden is demented” narrative. We cared for dad with dementia for almost 3 years.
I'd like to know as well. When I tried to contact the NYT it's my recollection that it was paywalled unless you were a subscriber, which I'm not. I could be totally mistaken, but it's very hard to contact most media outlets specifically either to article author/content ... So, Gary's done an amazing job with his thoroughness and tenacity in and of themselves.
Thank you so much for sharing your communications with the NYT. Your researching and identifying specifics are helpful to readers here; I hope will help Mr. Gardiner realize that his readers are not just those who subscribe for the crossword puzzle. He should be a little bit concerned and if he is not, then maybe we here can HELP him be a little bit concerned, or at least enough to make a course correction.
See below for Thom Hartman’s frighteningly detailed and believable depictions of Trump’s dictatorship, based on his past statements and those of his supporters.
Thanks for that link, Bruce. I am not following Thom currently but he is superb, and I used to listen to his radio show on KPFK years ago, and he always was fact-rich and provided a clear narrative. I will share this, for sure.
I don't think this excellent letter is at all too long. If it was sent to Letters to the Editor I hope they print it in its entirety. If they don't can we all contribute and buy a page or half page to print it?
It is far too long as a letter, I agree, Stephen. This was a direct communication to the News Department spokesperson. Stiil very long, even so. I commented above that at the very least, it would be another moment of communication emphasizing the point we are making in writing to the NYT about their reverse-biased coverage.
On a positive note, last evening I helped collect signatures on petitions for Democrats wanting to run for office. It was uplifting. Long lines formed and the overwhelming atmosphere was happy and energetic.At the table where Biden’s petition was being signed cheers would often break out as people signed on to support our president. Only 2 people out of the many I talked with had anything negative to say about Biden.
Here is my point. Instead of reading the bad news and getting stressed, get out and do something to help Democrats win up and down the ballot. You will feel better and you will be actively supporting our democracy. Sitting at home worrying only contributes to our national mental health crisis. Let’s get out a vote that is so decisive there can be no questioning of the results.
The collapse of the so-called “greatest deliberative body in the world” is sad, horrifying and infuriating. And if it results in no aid for Ukraine the two memes of the year will be Neville Chamberlain saying “I have bought peace in my time” with various losers AI’d on to his face and Hannah Arendt’s quote (approximate) “All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing w/ a picture of the Statue of Liberty crying.
I, among many of your readers, Mr. Hubbell, am old. 75 years old to be precise. Your last words today have been much in my thoughts lately on a personal basis. I have some health issues that may let me carry on -- 10 years or 5 or?? Hard to say. All I do know from my long and interesting experience of this life is that there will be surprises. And, some of them will be good. By definition, of course, a surprise is something we didn't expect, can't anticipate, and that gives us a feeling of awe (valence TBD). It's like this for these large events as well as for my small personal ones. Getting old really does refine your thinking entirely down to the knife's edge or at least it has mine; one of my favorite activities: planning for the future has been narrowed considerably and I must get up every morning -- as I choose to do every morning -- and live my best, happiest, and most genuine life. It's everything and not enough and nothing all at the same time ...
Excellent post. Are you a scientist? You include Claude Shannon's definition of information (surprise) and note "valence TBD." Both very evocative. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
"It's everything and not enough and nothing all at the same time ." Wise words, Meredith, and especially wise when your idea of a "genuine life" encompasses staying awake, caring for others and our planet and country, reason and justice. Long life to you.
Excellent post. It seems pretty clear that Trump has been on Putin's payroll at least since the primaries in 2016. Donald does the puppetmaster's bidding, and Donald doesn't do anything for free. "Follow the money," the advice to the journalists investigating Watergate, is good advice here. It would not be easy to unravel all the payoffs because Putin undoubtedly knows how to cover his tracks. But after 8 years, there should be some revelations.
Just like I will never forgive Comey for his pre-election announcement of the resumption of the investigation of Hillary Clinton, which cost her the election and gave the presidency to TFFG, I will never forgive Garland for his unconscionable 18-month delay in appointing Smith as special prosecutor, which has resulted in the timeline crisis we are now in, whereby there's a chance that some trials may not take place before the election.
I have been beyond furious with Garland from the day he was confirmed.. He should have hit the ground running....after T and his henchmen.. Instead it literally took the Jan 6 select committee to force him into action. Unforgivable.
Robert, I appreciate everything you provide us in your Substack offerings. I try to pace myself whenever one is lengthy and covers some distressing information. If I don't have the emotional bandwidth to take it all in during one reading, I will skim, read parts more deeply, take a break, digest the information, and then delve into the other parts later. I used to push myself to allot all the time I needed to read every word, contemplate as I went, and finish what was written, no matter how long it took. I've learned to pace myself and not over-saturate my brain with too much news on those days when several heavy things hit the news. I've learned, and it was, as the saying goes, the hard way. Everyone deals with a torrent of difficult news in different ways. I used to be an extreme, all-or-nothing purveyor of news, but now I have learned to pace. I intend to be around for the long haul and do my part to help save our democracy. Sitting in the corner or bed, covered up and weeping in despair, helps no one, much less myself. I am venting now, but this is timely because I recently had a few days grappling with this subject. One final and essential thing: the community aspect of this group of commenters keeps me going forward.
Kathy J - Every single word! Thank you saving me the time/effort of posting something similar because you laid it out perfectly. Another nice aspect of this community is lack of trolls holding sway.
In all due respect, the appeal to defeat Trump at the ballot box should be a moot point. He is not eligible to run. Period. Being an insurrectionist disqualifies him, as per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Again, period.
Tristan Snell on CNN made an excellent point. He said: Congress *already* disqualified Trump from ballot. Majorities of BOTH houses of Congress found, after a full trial, that Trump INCITED AN INSURRECTION. When was this, you ask? In the 2nd impeachment. SCOTUS should defer to Congress's conclusion.
Like they say in Brooklyn—or did before it was gentrified—woulda, shoulda, coulda. You are right, of course, but as there’s a very good chance the Supremes will screw it up, we need to be working on November. If that becomes a waste, because he is held ineligible, so be it.
My fear is that if he stays on the ballot, he can either win (which would be a disaster) or he will lose and contest it, as he has all these years, continuing to jeopardize the integrity of the rule or law and making his sycophants and cult members operate out of fear of him, as he is proving every day, not out of principles of good governance.
Yesterday, I posted about not letting the news overwhelm us. It comes at us like a firehose, and it’s impossible to withstand that kind of blast for long.
Today, I woke up and started my day with Professor Richardson’s letter, and I felt like I had boarded a sinking ship. Her analysis of Trump’s takeover of the GOP was scary and spot on. After reading the comments, it was clear people were scared. Hell, I was terrified. So I come over here to read Robert’s letter, and the tone, while slightly less visceral, is much the same. We can't afford to be scared both for our own well-being and that of the nations. Yesterday, I had several people allude to the inevitability of Trump’s takeover if our country; today, that theme is continued. When it even pervades this community and its strong sense of activism, we all need to take notice.
We all must acknowledge the need to step back from the granular analysis of events occasionally. As someone mentioned above, write some postcards, turn off the news, mute your online sources for a day or so, and frankly, do whatever works for you. We have nine months to the election, and if we want to stave off the onslaught of MAGA and Trump, we all need to have clear heads. We aren't helpless; Trump is not inevitable, but we are all human. Let’s acknowledge that and pace ourselves.
It helped me to read Timothy Snyder's substack that Robert refers to (I think it's the one yesterday ...) because he basically acknowledges our fears and goes from there. I like Snyder a lot as he's pragmatic as well as knowledgeable and articulate ...
Regarding the February 8 oral arguments in the 14th Amendment case, Democracy Docket has a helpful analysis of 4 key arguments to look for: 1) Who has enforcement power under Section 3; 2) Gorsuch's opinion in a 2012 case where he writes the state can "exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office;" 3) A possible return of the independent state legislature theory; and, 4) Whether the Colorado secretary of state's argument will impact the case.
During a short course on contract law, its lawyer-teacher responded to one of my comments: “You’re being too logical !!!” That’s my reaction to Lynell’s comment: this Supreme Court will do whatever it wants to do, logic be damned.
I’m beginning to feel like it’s time for President Biden to take to the media a reprimand to the former President. To whit: you are not President now. You had your chance to fix the border and you failed at this and your efforts to turn over Europe to Putin. In my three years in office I’ve managed to repair the economy you trashed and gave away to your wealthy friends, restore respect for America in the world, create more than 14 million jobs, oversee an increase in wages and brought inflation under control without triggering a recession. I am President now. Until you are able to become President again, stay out of managing America’s future. You want to change that, you’ll have to win the election by convincing Americans that your lies about the economy, foreign policy and immigration are true. I am ready for you. Until that happens, stop messing with our country’s future and the future of the free world.
"Several readers commented about the length, density, and emotional burden of the news." It is what it is - If I wanted to feel good about the news, I wouldn't read it! Just grateful I found, among choice others, Robert's way of delivery.
Good morning and always, thank you to Robert and all my excellent fellow readers. You make my day better.
I am not hearing enough direct statement from media overall that Trump is actually now, operating a shadow government with him negotiating with Congress. It’s not his job!!! He is a candidate. We’ve never had a candidate call the shots about passing a bill or not. While the bill is a major loss, the worst and more serious thing is the Congress and courts following Trump as if he’s the president. He’s not. Somehow we have to help voters get this. It’s completely unacceptable that he was able to instruct our congress to kill that bill.
We all have read what Trump said he would do if elected. I am attaching an article by Jennifer Rubin about what Biden could do if re-elected. We need to focus on how we could fix some of the loopholes Republicans have taken advantage of and we can strengthen our Democracy. We need to state clearly what we are for rather than against. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/08/biden-second-term-obstruction/
In response to calls from Robert and others to communicate with the NYT about my dissatisfaction with the paper's Trump coverage, I did submit a comment, got a reply, and responded. This is the rather lengthy, complete interaction, for everyone's consideration.
1) Comment to the NYT regarding a position of Public Editor, and the NYT coverage of Donald Trump:
I understand that currently the NYT has no position of Public Editor, and that this is under scrutiny. My opinion is that to the degree that a Public Editor would advocate for the Times to be more forward in addressing the unique circumstances now of a fascist (accurate characterization based upon actions and words) running for President, and the threat that poses to the country, I am very much in favor of creating such a position and filling it with a clear-eyed person who would advocate to favor openly acknowledging what Trump represents, and not dance around it and pretend that this is a race between two candidates who both respect law and the Constitution. The effort to be balanced and fair is accomplishing the opposite, tipping the balance in Trump's favor.
================================================
2) Reply from Aidan Gardiner, News Assistant, NYT:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for writing to us.
We are an independent newsroom that aims to provide our readers with a full picture of the world so they can make informed decisions about their lives. We do that by pursuing and presenting the facts without fear or favor.
It’s a bit tricky to directly address your concern because the term fascism is used by different people to refer to different things. Please know that even if our editors don’t liberally apply that term, they do take seriously neo-Nazis (and similar extremists, political violence (and threats of violence) and efforts to curtail the checks and balances that are key to democratic government.
Donald J. Trump has made clear that he wants to radically transform American government if he wins a second term. Our editors agree that coverage of these plans should be aggressive and given prominence in our report.
You may be interested in some of those articles:
The Retribution Presidency
Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent -- (front page)
Donald J. Trump and his allies are already laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump presidency, forging plans for an even more extreme agenda than his first term.
Trump, Quoting Putin, Declares Indictments ‘Politically Motivated Persecution’
Donald Trump’s threats for another presidency are deeply alarming, historians and legal experts say.
Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power -- (front page)
Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First -- (front page)
A New Trump Administration Will ‘Come After’ the Media, Says Kash Patel
If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda -- (front page)
Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans -- (front page)
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025 -- (front page)
Trump Wanted to Fire Missiles at Mexico. Now the G.O.P. Wants to Send Troops. -- (front page)
Reasonable readers have argued that this should be the focus of our report every day, but we believe that we would then fail in our broader mission to address the varied questions and concerns of our wide and diverse audience.
One of those questions is, “How likely is it that Mr. Biden will thwart Mr. Trump’s re-election to the presidency?”
Americans expect a lot from their leaders and want assurance that they can live up to those expectations when we give them power. Voters have legitimate concerns about Mr. Biden’s age. (His peers are less strident.) Were we not to report on it and it became a deciding factor in the election, many readers would rightly turn to us and ask, “Why didn’t you let us know about this ahead of time?” In that way, his age seems newsworthy (as is Mr. Trump’s).
How best to distill the day’s events in these pages is always a judgment call, but know that these choices are made by thoughtful people, like our Standards team, which has grown to eight editors. Unlike the Public Editor, who worked independently in the Opinion department and gave retrospective analysis of newsroom missteps, our Standards editors work beside their newsroom colleagues and review their articles before publication.
But missteps persist even under the watchful eyes of the best editors because The Times remains, proudly, a human institution. (For what it’s worth, much has been made of our 2016 election coverage, but two Public Editors served during that time and Mr. Trump was still elected.)
"I don't think there can be a 'paper of record,'" said a former managing editor of ours, John Geddes. "The term implies an omniscient chronicler of events, an arbiter that perfectly captures the significance and import of a day in our lives. I don't work at that place. I work at a newspaper that exists in a world where there are constraints of time, resources and knowledge. The wonder of the paper is that knowing the everyday limits to our ambitions doesn't prevent us from trying to exceed them."
I hope this clarifies.
Aidan Gardiner, news assistant
[MY REPLY IS IN A FOLLOWING POST]
Minor pickiness, but really just supports your overall point even more thoroughly... Gardiner refers throughout his response to 'Mr. Biden' and 'Mr. Trump'. Trump who apparently understands the power of words way more than does the NYT always tries to get himself referred to STILL as 'President Trump.' It would be far more accurate of the NYT to refer to Biden with that title and to leave Mr. Trump as the regular 'ole citizen he technically is.
I wouldn't call this minor. Language has a powerful impact.
Gardiner's response regarding coverage of Biden's age "Were we not to report on it and it became a deciding factor in the election, many readers would rightly turn to us and ask, 'Why didn’t you let us know about this ahead of time?'”
Could also be said of Trump!! I'd say looming fascism is slightly more consequential right now than age. WTH
Not to mention, the Times has spent far more print space on President Biden age than on his positive leadership under the most adverse circumstances any president in recent history has experienced, most significantly the negative intervention and undermining of solid efforts like the recent bipartisan proposal for immigration reforms.
I’ve heard that people see thump as having more “energy” than Biden - & this is from Democratic voters 😡
If you look carefully at Trump you’ll see a big, lumbering man in an huge overcoat. Listening to him is offers a continuous non sequitur.
I agree about Fascism being more imporant.
But if you want to compare and contrast the two of them based on age, Trump being a few years younger chronologically is immaterial as adults age very differently. Especially considering that Trump is definitely declining way quicker than Biden wrt his mental faculties. Trump has confused George W Bush with Jeb Bush, Obama with Biden, and now Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi for heaven's sake. He's also confused Orban and Erdogan, two of his favorite dictators and thinks WWII hasn't happened yet.
I like this recent ad from the Lincoln Project:
Stable Genius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgvemm9-mkY
In fact, Jay Olshansky, a leading scholar on aging (who I interviewed on that subject a number of years ago) thinks that Biden may be a "super ager", someone whose biological aging is very slow, so that they maintain all their faculties to a very old age. Like my mother's cousin Ruth, who passed the driving test at age 96 "with flying colors" according to the instructor, and lived to be 104.
I would say that anyone who can fly to Israel twice in less than 10 days--for 36 hours in the air--and conduct business while there, 9 time zones away from his own, is an excellent candidate for a super ager.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/popmedicine/cultureclinic/108213?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2024-01-10&eun=g1964106d0r
That is a very important point. Travel is very difficult to adjust to, when it crosses time zones. We all know about how out of it one can feel after an international flight. The ability to adapt typically does decine with age, so for Biden to handle that is pretty amazing, frankly.
[THIS IS A COMPLETION OF A PREVIOUS PARTIAL POST MOMENTS AGO ABOUT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEWS DEPARTMENT OF THE NYT:
I replied TO MR. GARDINER OF THE NYT as follows:
Mr. Gardiner:
I thank you for your lengthy reply to my submission. I offer the following observations. I acknowledge that this is also rather lengthy, but I think these are worthwhile considerations, not tangential, and not a rant.
1) Fascism is well-defined and Trump's words and actions match the checklist perfectly. If the Times clearly defined the term, it would be able to use it in relation to Trump's words and actions and there would be no room for misunderstanding. As an absolute minimum, the adjective fascist should be applied to specific actions and wording, also well-defined.
2) Given the crystal clear explanation of Trump as a danger to democracy in the article "Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent", why would the homepage of today's online NYT mention Trump 18 times and Biden 5 times (of which only one headline is positive (EPA action to reduce pollution, mentioned twice), and three are horse-race articles that talk about “openings” and “shifts” and a “comeback”, clearly communicating deficiencies up to this point, and not any worthwhile accomplishments. Is the President not doing anything newsworthy that is serving the interests of the American people?
The 18 mentions of Trump included:
5 about his legal cases (two were entirely analysis - no specific event, and one of these was listed twice)
1 featured a "crackpot" legal theorist whose ideas would allow Trump to remain on the Colorado (and other) ballots
1 was in the weeds of whether a witness in Trump's fraud case perjured himself in that case, which is relevant only to the amount of damages the judge will impose
3 about his "MAGA Superpower" (same headline mentioned three times) - This editorial bewails that the average American knows "next to nothing" about what Trump's explicitly stated plans are for a second term - whose fault is that??? However, this was mostly polls and horse-race.
1 audio offering an explanation of his appeal, which never mentioned the word "cult" (an accurate and negative term, instead using the metaphor of "rock star", a positive metaphor).
1 Michelle Goldberg editorial about Poland resembling what Trump would turn America into. Sobering, yes.
1 Nevada GOP primary results (horse-race, talked about Trump as much as Haley, normalizing his campaign)
2 in the headline and subhead about Jimmy Kimmel's and other late-night hosts' clever one-liners, but they only talked about Trump
2 about the border and Biden's stance changing to "offense" (same headline mentioned twice) (Mr. Baker's article followed the false narrative claimed by Republicans that Biden wasn't doing anything about the border during his first three years, when the facts as to apprehensions and deportations are the opposite, and failed to point out that the increase in the number of undocumented border crossings is not a consequence of Biden's policies, and is a complex matter having to do with political instability, gang warfare and climate migrants)
1 about immigration and the "lump of labor fallacy" (an economic analysis from Krugman that lumped Trump in with Mitterand and Kurt Vonnegut as promoting an economic misconception)
None of these stories, not one, speaks to the issue of Trump as an existential threat to democracy, his fascist rhetoric and behaviors, his cult appeal, his calls for violence, etc., etc.
As a group, they normalize him as just another candidate.
In my view, an accurate rendering of the news would never normalize the pathology that is Donald Trump.
3) I searched the NYT for the phrase "Project 2025", and there were 10 articles in which it was mentioned, dating between 4/2023 and 1/29/2024. NOT ONE INCLUDED THE PHRASE "PROJECT 2025" IN THE HEADLINE, and not one of them was specifically about the document that lays it out.
I then searched for the phrase "Mandate for Leadership" (from the title of the 887-page book that lays out the policy recommendations for Project 2025), and I found TWO references to it. Neither names it in the headline.
One was in an interview by Ezra Klein (which was repeated in a list of book recommendations for the year 2023), where the reference is buried far, far down in the interview.
The other was in a 12/20/2023 editorial by Thomas B. Edsall called " 'I Am Your Retribution.' Trump Knows What He Wants To Do With a Second Term."
Even after a litany of petrifying possibilities that would be unreviewable and technically “legal”, according to numerous quoted legal experts, which in the aggregate would turn the U.S. into a near-totalitarian police state (have you read this article?), the strongest adjective Mr. Edsall could muster to describe this was "alarming."
It is no surprise that Americans know “next to nothing” about this frightening document.
In summary, it remains my view that the NYT has failed to sufficiently inform its readers about the nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses, or the explicit details of how this existential threat would play out and affect them.
I deeply appreciate whatever time and attention you are able to dedicate to our communication.
Regards,
Gary
Gary
I have been writing my comments to the NYTs directly for the past 3 months. I have consistently asked journalists and senior editors to explain their anti-Biden bias. My favorite was the day the Times profiledon Pg 1 how well dressed the Trump kids were in their NY court appearances. The only story about Biden was his appearance in Ohio, celebrating the UAW's contract victory. That was on Pg 15. I suggested to the Times if an alien landed that day and read the Times, who would they think was POTUS? I didn't get an answer. IMO, Sulzberger and Kahn intentionally want the Times news dept. to continue its anti-Biden reporting so the paper is perceived as non-partisan. They don't seem to believe if Trump wins, the Times is up the creek.
I love the "If an alien landed today . . . ." test for determining whether news coverage is fair and representative. I may adopt it.
Please .me my guest!
Another explanation is that the NYT is simply hedging their bets.
Sadly, I think it's an eyeball decision. The Times wants as many conservative readers as they can get.🤯
I have no idea why the NYT is behaving about DJT the way it’s behaving. I really don’t care; I’m not their shrink. What I do care about is the NYT’s unprofessional ‘journalism’, especially with regard to DJT/Biden and Hamas/Israel.
Awesome - keep up the pressure! Question, did you get any replies that explicitly communicated that the reporting is being done to avoid accusations of being non-partisan? That is my take, as well, but I haven't seen that acknowledged by the paper, although perhaps it has been. Even so, how is being demonstrably "anti-Biden" non-partisan? It is the worse of partisanship - shooting one party down to appease irrational hypersensitivity and/or cynicism of the other (in a failed attempt to woo Trump supporters, who detest the NYT, as directed by their ~cult leader, who is planning an anti-democratic take-over and make-over of the country to turn it into Hungary as quickly as possible). That is doubly wrong. How do they think their journalists will fare when Trump weaponizes the Justice Department, if given the opportunity?
Gary. Right now the Times reporters are busy trying to trash Biden over the partisan hit job provided by the Hur Report. The report cleared Biden of breaking security laws but Hur went way off the reservation to criticize Biden's mental capacity. Hur should be fired tomorrow by Garland for dangerously exceeding his authority.
In any case, I want to organize a daily campaign of writing into the press pushing them to provide more balanced coverage of Biden for so many reasons.
If you're interested, let me know and we can talk by phone...thanks Merrill
Call me on Sunday at 714 504-9582, but not before 10 AM Pacific Time (night owl hours). If I don't pick up, please leave a message.
Gary
Thanks Gary,
I will
Exactly. The Times seems lost in a shadow box of their own making. Or at least Sulzberger and Kahn's making. They run the place and make daily decisions about bees reporting.
The Times has about 10 million digital subscriptions and 1.5 million paper subscriptions. Maybe their current digital heavy business model requires a lot of controversy with readers to stay popular. Like yourself, I think it's utterly irresponsible journalism and has made a mockery of their mission statement "All the news that fit to print".
I try to do what I can to make sure that people who are aware of how dangerous Trump is don't get sidetracked by the counterproductive journalism that we see so often in the traditional media. So asymmetric. You essentially never see such an off-message article at Fox, and certainly not multiple times per day. We just have to stay on it - and not lose focus of what losing this election in November would mean.
Excellent work! Everyone should follow suit!
Thank you Gary.
I believe you took the all that information and laid it right straight down - I hope that Mr Gardiner “sees” what we see, or at least sees that we ‘see’ what they are doing.
PS I wish I had the skill and competence to write my thoughts down like that. Well done.
Karen, Mr Gardiner wants clicks and likes that drive profit. He has no duty to inform his readership. His duty is to “the business” of his owners. Joe Biden’s leadership successes don’t drive clicks and likes, controversy does. Its a short term type of thinking, the kind driven by quarterly reports and stock market value that drive his (their) bonuses
Dave, I agree with you that any corporate-owned media outlet has as profitability as a focus, and that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a mantra for news organizations because humans are more responsive to threat than they are to disinterested facts. In my view, another Trump presidency is the greatest threat Americans currently face. Therefore, handling Trump in a more gingerly fashion compared to Biden is not aligned with garnering clicks and likes based upon fear, threat and drama. In my view, it reflects a misconceived hesitancy in criticizing Trump in a doomed effort to avoid alienating conservative readership and preserve the now-pointless ability to claim the high road. I think they can claim the highest road if they are truly balanced and honestly report more consistently the fascist nature of Trump's effort to secure the presidency, which is driven not by a public interest of any kind, but a private interest (proving he is not a loser, being able to shut down federal prosecutions of him, and taking revenge on perceived "enemies", which means anyone who has demonstrated less than 100% fealty, etc.)
Be all that as it may, what would you recommend Karen do, in terms of her interest in participating in efforts to foster beliefs and behaviors that she considers as indicative of a healthy society?
Yes, I’m aware.
Robert has spoken about this often
Karen: You are very kind. I would disagree with you on one point - you DO have the skill and competence to communicate your thoughts in writing - you just did it. Anyone who can use the phrase "skill and competence", can write a letter to the editor (LTE). Perhaps you are doing this already, but Jessica Craven's blog, Chop Wood and Carry Water, allows for a variety of types of political participation about topics you likely care about, which requires minimal original composition, and is easy and quick. If you email me at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, I can email you back a tutorial on letter-writing, and I would encourage you to write letters to the editor to your local paper(s). Even a three-sentence, plainspoken letter that communicates your thinking contributes to the outlet's understanding of their audience, and that drives resource allocation (staff time, column real estate, etc.). If you wish, I can add your email to my informal newsletter list, which goes primarily to my Citizens Climate Lobby chapter members, but is growing. The writing style and analysis is similar to what you have already seen and covers a broad range of topics.
Thank you I must have received a similar response from the Times and although I too responded my response was less detailed and well documented as yours. Teasing the question more pointedly is akin to a reporter not letting up when the interviewee gives an elusive answer. A much needed service.
Good for you, Gary! Those wretched snails of an excuse for journalists enrage me daily. Much like their responses to the climate crisis, somehow they believe that if the dire predictions of a Trump return (in whatever form that occurs) will bypass them, personally and, I guess, institutionally. They'll just keep cranking out the comic-book headlines and go home to their families after the work day. They're nuts.
Since SCOTUS took out Roe and it’s impacted health care for over half the US Population (uh- women(last I checked we are more than 50%))- there isn’t one family that hasn’t been bypassed. If you have a mother, sister, daughter, female cousin …. You are not bypassed. today.
I am a woman and have a daughter, sister, granddaughter and of course understand the cruelty and horrific effects of Dobbs. Here's hoping the Dems will get a sweep of the federal gov't and can begin to remedy some of these atrocities...
Women don't want to die for Mike Johnson's religious beliefs. If the majority of the S. Ct. were Jehovah's Witnesses who don't accept blood transfusions due to their religious beliefs, would they implement that policy on the rest of us? What's the difference?
What's ironic is that the country was founded by a group of people from Europe who wanted the freedom to practice their religion outside of state control ... and we seem to have devolved into exactly what they were trying to escape.
Actually, many of the original colonies tried to suppress those who practiced religion differently – e.g., Roger Williams being forced out of Massachusetts, Maryland being established for Catholics.
What there was is what we experience today – a mixture of ‘tolerance’ and intolerance.
Gary, wowza..what a job that was, thank you
Extraordinary work. Thank you. If the NYT doesn't hear you, we hear you and are alarmed and charged up by your words.
Yes, extraordinary work, Gary!
Superb!
Thank you Gary. Where did you send the original communication? Was it a letter to the editor or something else? I certainly never get response to anything I submit!
If I recall, it was a blog post (I think it was Robert's, actually) that suggested writing to the NYT news department directly, as opposed to a letter-to-the-editor. Articles do have an option for direct feedback. The issue was whether the paper should have a Public Editor. Why I got a reply if others did not, I can only surmise was a consequence of their particular take on what I said. The reply was long and detailed, and likely not a one-off composition - the long list of links to other articles suggests this was a boilerplate response. Even so, I treated it as if it came personally from Aidan, and my reply, long and tortured as it was, was part rant, part writing exercise, part obsessiveness and partly for other folks I forward it to as motivation. Even if Adain looked at it briefly, it's still another little "ping", and the more the better. Did you see the online front page today - two articles about Biden; headlines include "concerns about his memory", "political nightmare" and "biggest political vulnerability." It's outrageous! This right-wing talking point has been roiling around for years and years - 5-years ago right-wing radio was claiming Biden was already far along in a dementia state - so ridiculous, and here the NYT is parroting it. It's literally as bad or worse as what is on Fox right now, with headline "Biden..not able to recall basic facts" and "did not remember when he was vice-president." OMG. Have they watched his recent speeches? I am an internal medicine physician - I have treated people with dementia for decades. I know how they talk and believe me, Biden is not experiencing cognitive decline worth talking about.
Thank you, Gary. You truly inspire me to keep writing even when I receive no response…
You may be getting more response than you realize. Editors have to decide how to allocate resources. If your letter is accompanied by numerous other ones, all of which also do not get published, it still makes it more likely that the letters editor will perceive that this is a topic of interest to readers, and will publish one or two letters about the article you wrote about.
Maybe it's not your letter in the paper, but you helped get that one in that is there. It's a numbers game. You may not be on stage, but you are in the crowd yelling, and that creates the excitement that the speaker needs to more likely reach people such that they decide to become an activist.
Appreciate the info.Your comments also made me realize I should be using my own experience when countering “Biden is demented” narrative. We cared for dad with dementia for almost 3 years.
Exactly - you can see the difference. Like I said, this narrative has been pounded into people's heads for years.
Thank you.
I'd like to know as well. When I tried to contact the NYT it's my recollection that it was paywalled unless you were a subscriber, which I'm not. I could be totally mistaken, but it's very hard to contact most media outlets specifically either to article author/content ... So, Gary's done an amazing job with his thoroughness and tenacity in and of themselves.
Thank you so much for sharing your communications with the NYT. Your researching and identifying specifics are helpful to readers here; I hope will help Mr. Gardiner realize that his readers are not just those who subscribe for the crossword puzzle. He should be a little bit concerned and if he is not, then maybe we here can HELP him be a little bit concerned, or at least enough to make a course correction.
Gary:
A++
Gary please keep on keeping on! Thank you so much for speaking truth to the NYT.
Terrific job, Gary! Thank you.
See below for Thom Hartman’s frighteningly detailed and believable depictions of Trump’s dictatorship, based on his past statements and those of his supporters.
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-second-trump-ec9
Thanks for that link, Bruce. I am not following Thom currently but he is superb, and I used to listen to his radio show on KPFK years ago, and he always was fact-rich and provided a clear narrative. I will share this, for sure.
Thank you!!!
Thanks for putting this together. I think your points are excellent but the letter too long.
I don't think this excellent letter is at all too long. If it was sent to Letters to the Editor I hope they print it in its entirety. If they don't can we all contribute and buy a page or half page to print it?
GoFundMe? Just kidding (on the square).
Gary
It is far too long as a letter, I agree, Stephen. This was a direct communication to the News Department spokesperson. Stiil very long, even so. I commented above that at the very least, it would be another moment of communication emphasizing the point we are making in writing to the NYT about their reverse-biased coverage.
On a positive note, last evening I helped collect signatures on petitions for Democrats wanting to run for office. It was uplifting. Long lines formed and the overwhelming atmosphere was happy and energetic.At the table where Biden’s petition was being signed cheers would often break out as people signed on to support our president. Only 2 people out of the many I talked with had anything negative to say about Biden.
Here is my point. Instead of reading the bad news and getting stressed, get out and do something to help Democrats win up and down the ballot. You will feel better and you will be actively supporting our democracy. Sitting at home worrying only contributes to our national mental health crisis. Let’s get out a vote that is so decisive there can be no questioning of the results.
!!!
"Action is the antidote to depair" as many have said...
You can't roll up your sleeves if you're wringing your hands. :-)
Terry Wallace You totally nailed it.
I agree 100%. Everything will come down to the November election. Period.
The collapse of the so-called “greatest deliberative body in the world” is sad, horrifying and infuriating. And if it results in no aid for Ukraine the two memes of the year will be Neville Chamberlain saying “I have bought peace in my time” with various losers AI’d on to his face and Hannah Arendt’s quote (approximate) “All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing w/ a picture of the Statue of Liberty crying.
I, among many of your readers, Mr. Hubbell, am old. 75 years old to be precise. Your last words today have been much in my thoughts lately on a personal basis. I have some health issues that may let me carry on -- 10 years or 5 or?? Hard to say. All I do know from my long and interesting experience of this life is that there will be surprises. And, some of them will be good. By definition, of course, a surprise is something we didn't expect, can't anticipate, and that gives us a feeling of awe (valence TBD). It's like this for these large events as well as for my small personal ones. Getting old really does refine your thinking entirely down to the knife's edge or at least it has mine; one of my favorite activities: planning for the future has been narrowed considerably and I must get up every morning -- as I choose to do every morning -- and live my best, happiest, and most genuine life. It's everything and not enough and nothing all at the same time ...
Excellent post. Are you a scientist? You include Claude Shannon's definition of information (surprise) and note "valence TBD." Both very evocative. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
"It's everything and not enough and nothing all at the same time ." Wise words, Meredith, and especially wise when your idea of a "genuine life" encompasses staying awake, caring for others and our planet and country, reason and justice. Long life to you.
Excellent post. It seems pretty clear that Trump has been on Putin's payroll at least since the primaries in 2016. Donald does the puppetmaster's bidding, and Donald doesn't do anything for free. "Follow the money," the advice to the journalists investigating Watergate, is good advice here. It would not be easy to unravel all the payoffs because Putin undoubtedly knows how to cover his tracks. But after 8 years, there should be some revelations.
Garland let the obstruction of justice charges from the Mueller Report lapse.
Second worst attorney general in out nation's history.
Just like I will never forgive Comey for his pre-election announcement of the resumption of the investigation of Hillary Clinton, which cost her the election and gave the presidency to TFFG, I will never forgive Garland for his unconscionable 18-month delay in appointing Smith as special prosecutor, which has resulted in the timeline crisis we are now in, whereby there's a chance that some trials may not take place before the election.
I have been beyond furious with Garland from the day he was confirmed.. He should have hit the ground running....after T and his henchmen.. Instead it literally took the Jan 6 select committee to force him into action. Unforgivable.
Robert, I appreciate everything you provide us in your Substack offerings. I try to pace myself whenever one is lengthy and covers some distressing information. If I don't have the emotional bandwidth to take it all in during one reading, I will skim, read parts more deeply, take a break, digest the information, and then delve into the other parts later. I used to push myself to allot all the time I needed to read every word, contemplate as I went, and finish what was written, no matter how long it took. I've learned to pace myself and not over-saturate my brain with too much news on those days when several heavy things hit the news. I've learned, and it was, as the saying goes, the hard way. Everyone deals with a torrent of difficult news in different ways. I used to be an extreme, all-or-nothing purveyor of news, but now I have learned to pace. I intend to be around for the long haul and do my part to help save our democracy. Sitting in the corner or bed, covered up and weeping in despair, helps no one, much less myself. I am venting now, but this is timely because I recently had a few days grappling with this subject. One final and essential thing: the community aspect of this group of commenters keeps me going forward.
Kathy J - Every single word! Thank you saving me the time/effort of posting something similar because you laid it out perfectly. Another nice aspect of this community is lack of trolls holding sway.
Yup; Oxygen mask.
In all due respect, the appeal to defeat Trump at the ballot box should be a moot point. He is not eligible to run. Period. Being an insurrectionist disqualifies him, as per Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Again, period.
Tristan Snell on CNN made an excellent point. He said: Congress *already* disqualified Trump from ballot. Majorities of BOTH houses of Congress found, after a full trial, that Trump INCITED AN INSURRECTION. When was this, you ask? In the 2nd impeachment. SCOTUS should defer to Congress's conclusion.
Like they say in Brooklyn—or did before it was gentrified—woulda, shoulda, coulda. You are right, of course, but as there’s a very good chance the Supremes will screw it up, we need to be working on November. If that becomes a waste, because he is held ineligible, so be it.
My fear is that if he stays on the ballot, he can either win (which would be a disaster) or he will lose and contest it, as he has all these years, continuing to jeopardize the integrity of the rule or law and making his sycophants and cult members operate out of fear of him, as he is proving every day, not out of principles of good governance.
Yesterday, I posted about not letting the news overwhelm us. It comes at us like a firehose, and it’s impossible to withstand that kind of blast for long.
Today, I woke up and started my day with Professor Richardson’s letter, and I felt like I had boarded a sinking ship. Her analysis of Trump’s takeover of the GOP was scary and spot on. After reading the comments, it was clear people were scared. Hell, I was terrified. So I come over here to read Robert’s letter, and the tone, while slightly less visceral, is much the same. We can't afford to be scared both for our own well-being and that of the nations. Yesterday, I had several people allude to the inevitability of Trump’s takeover if our country; today, that theme is continued. When it even pervades this community and its strong sense of activism, we all need to take notice.
We all must acknowledge the need to step back from the granular analysis of events occasionally. As someone mentioned above, write some postcards, turn off the news, mute your online sources for a day or so, and frankly, do whatever works for you. We have nine months to the election, and if we want to stave off the onslaught of MAGA and Trump, we all need to have clear heads. We aren't helpless; Trump is not inevitable, but we are all human. Let’s acknowledge that and pace ourselves.
It helped me to read Timothy Snyder's substack that Robert refers to (I think it's the one yesterday ...) because he basically acknowledges our fears and goes from there. I like Snyder a lot as he's pragmatic as well as knowledgeable and articulate ...
Well said, Dean ! 🧘🏻♀️
Regarding the February 8 oral arguments in the 14th Amendment case, Democracy Docket has a helpful analysis of 4 key arguments to look for: 1) Who has enforcement power under Section 3; 2) Gorsuch's opinion in a 2012 case where he writes the state can "exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office;" 3) A possible return of the independent state legislature theory; and, 4) Whether the Colorado secretary of state's argument will impact the case.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-to-watch-during-oral-argument-in-trumps-ballot-disqualification-case/
Thanks for the link!
During a short course on contract law, its lawyer-teacher responded to one of my comments: “You’re being too logical !!!” That’s my reaction to Lynell’s comment: this Supreme Court will do whatever it wants to do, logic be damned.
I’m beginning to feel like it’s time for President Biden to take to the media a reprimand to the former President. To whit: you are not President now. You had your chance to fix the border and you failed at this and your efforts to turn over Europe to Putin. In my three years in office I’ve managed to repair the economy you trashed and gave away to your wealthy friends, restore respect for America in the world, create more than 14 million jobs, oversee an increase in wages and brought inflation under control without triggering a recession. I am President now. Until you are able to become President again, stay out of managing America’s future. You want to change that, you’ll have to win the election by convincing Americans that your lies about the economy, foreign policy and immigration are true. I am ready for you. Until that happens, stop messing with our country’s future and the future of the free world.
Martin Solomon – please send your comment to President Biden (whitehouse.gov). It’s a great put-down.
"Several readers commented about the length, density, and emotional burden of the news." It is what it is - If I wanted to feel good about the news, I wouldn't read it! Just grateful I found, among choice others, Robert's way of delivery.
Good morning and always, thank you to Robert and all my excellent fellow readers. You make my day better.
I am not hearing enough direct statement from media overall that Trump is actually now, operating a shadow government with him negotiating with Congress. It’s not his job!!! He is a candidate. We’ve never had a candidate call the shots about passing a bill or not. While the bill is a major loss, the worst and more serious thing is the Congress and courts following Trump as if he’s the president. He’s not. Somehow we have to help voters get this. It’s completely unacceptable that he was able to instruct our congress to kill that bill.
In a nutshell: Trump first, America last, all for Putin.
We all have read what Trump said he would do if elected. I am attaching an article by Jennifer Rubin about what Biden could do if re-elected. We need to focus on how we could fix some of the loopholes Republicans have taken advantage of and we can strengthen our Democracy. We need to state clearly what we are for rather than against. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/08/biden-second-term-obstruction/
The GOP is no longer a acronym for grand old party it's better defined as "gang of putin".