I have taken Robert's suggestion and written to Ms. Bidgood at the NYT:
Ms. Bidgood:
My name is Gary Stewart. I have had 135 LTE’s published in 29 states since 2018.
I read your recent article “Two Imperfect Messengers Take On Abortion.”
I also follow Robert Hubbell’s substack blog.
I have been progressively more concerned about the relentless normalization of Donald Trump and false equivalence in comparisons between Trump nd Biden in the NYT this election year.
With all due respect, I consider what Mr. Hubbell had to say about your article was accurate:
"Over the last 25 years, Biden has been a staunch and vocal supporter of reproductive liberty for women despite his genuinely held religious views. That, in Bidgood’s opinion, makes Joe Biden an 'imperfect messenger' on equal footing with the candidate who brags about killing the constitutional right to right to reproductive liberty and openly supports total bans on abortion.
Bidgood’s article is irresponsible journalism because in striving for balance, she distorts reality and does violence to the facts. Donald Trump is a menace to women’s rights, while Joe Biden is a champion for women in all things—including their right to reproductive liberty. Bidgood’s article is misleading in suggesting otherwise."
I have to add to this the fact that Trump’s backing away from the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling about the 1864 Arizona law is cynical waffling, a classic Trump transactional political message that has no more consistency or credibility than anything he says. It is naive and dangerous to treat his statements as carrying any more weight than a puff of smoke. Trump’s opinion on abortion is whatever he sees as in his interest at that moment, and he has zero personal involvement in the issue beyond that.
Your article represents misguided both-sidesism, and the NYT’s dogged dedication to this anachronism is excessive and leads to framing that is totally out of step with reality.
I pray the NYT pays attention to your letter. It is very good. False equivalencies are the current manifestation of the GOP's stock in trade. I'd expect more from the newspaper of record.
Not in my opinion. I gave up my NYT subscription in 2022 - their “red wave” nonsense was lazy, disingenuous garbage posing as political insight.
I subscribed to NYT in 1975 as a Journalism student. Forty seven years later, I could not, in good conscience, send $200 plus for garbage journalism my J school profs would have rejected out of hand.
It’s true that I rely on Robert and other Substack authors to identify the garbage now and give me a chance to send notes to editors and authors. And I understand why Robert and others here continue to subscribe.
But watching the very calculated slide of America’s Newspaper of Record into pleasing MAGA by offering false equivalence such as this article does, is beyond my tolerance.
No, it isn’t better than the alternatives. The Guardian is far from perfect but their coverage is generally fair and consistent. Their coverage of the climate crisis is extraordinary - way better than any other mainstream media outlet.
I agree with your assessment of The Guardian and had already started subscribing last fall when it became clear that the previously trusted mainstream outlets had become garbage journalism.
The editorial board of the WSJ put me in a similar position vis-a-vis that publication. Couldn't do it. Responding to a WSJ editorial was torture - it was as if literally every sentence required a response to address the misleading, incomplete, cynical, demonstrably wrong assertions, claims and speculations.
Yes. I got tired of writing complaints to the NYT, and reading their inane responses. It was their responses that led me to believe they are incapable of self awareness. I also looked at their board, and it is oligarch kingdom, which clearly rules the paper, who is not even giving a thin pretense of balance.
Linda: Were you writing to journalists or to editors or to the corporate board? (At least you got some responses - the emails I submit go unanswered, despite being respectful and my contact information is included.) As to the oligarch kingdom, is that the corporate board you are referring to?
I have written to journalists, editors, and just responded to the comments in articles. I had a journalist write me back rather than publish what I said. I was complaining about them polling in the first place as inappropriate for a news organization because it is creating news, not just reporting on it. I also said we did not have enough background information on the poll to judge the veracity for ourselves, and he went on to tell me more details, but not the statistical kind I would have liked to have, like what were the questions, what was the scale, and how did they get their poll takers? I know that I don't respond to any polls at this point wanting to avoid trolls, etc... and not trusting these sorts of things, even if they come t my door. It is different if a university, since my family works for one, were to solicit us for a study. They would have to have us sign papers, they would commit to certain protections, and ethical nature of the study. Not so the random poll. It would be good if there were less polling and more discussing of the issues. I believe I have written editors more than once, and I have not written the board, or a specific board member. I guess it would be Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman of the NYT board.
Gary, while this is a great LTE it leaves me with a question I have asked previously when Robert points out the failure of The NY Times as they seem so willing to treat the current moment with equivalency as they report on or comment about President Joseph R. Biden and Donald J. Trump. There is NO circumstance where this continuing flawed journalism is acceptable.
Thus, my question: How can we readers create and promote a call to action to make clear that not only Jess Bidgood but the entire Times coterie of editors and journalists must step up to speak consistently and forceful on the matters of immense public concern and wellbeing for the future of the United States? Let’s not be limited to abortion as we call them to account and demand responsible journalism.
To that end, we must create a thunderous roar of displeasure with the Fourth Estate to get their full attention and commitment to advance a clear, indisputable record of the danger of Trump, misinformation, and the publicly available plans known as The Project 2025 - each constituting a major threat to democracy and global security.
I sympathize with your frustration on this. To my knowledge, the NYT has never been subjected to an overwhelming challenge to its formulation of journalism by its readers. As I said in another post, even a small impact on the publication can help, given its reach and how its way of doing things is seen as a model for other publications. The messaging should go to the journalists and the editors and the owners, letting them know that many of their consistent subscribers are appalled at the normalization of Trump. I also agree with you that there is power in numbers - "a thunderous roar of displeasure", insisting upon recognition and consistent of calling out of "Trump, misinformation, and the publicly available plans known as The Project 2025."
I"ve written several letters to Sulzberger ---- To use a crude phrase - 'It's like pissing against the wind'. Not that we should not continue to write -
Is Sulzberger Jr. still in charge,or is it Junior's son? If it's Jr. I certainly agree with you. If Jr.'s son has taken over, I don't know wht he's like.
My take is the more emails they get the more likely it is that it might have an effect. Even a small difference in the format of an article, a slight shift toward the "truth sandwich", a slight alteration in phrasing to make the non-equivalence of Biden and Trump, might help - after all, those slight differences are magnified as they go to many, many recipients. I agree that emails to the editorial board, the news department editors, and the journalists, themselves are necessary. Every little bit helps. There is also the impact on the friends and family of the writers like us, and they see the motivation and the goal, and that can get communicated to others well, uncluding friends and family in other states.
Robert, your decision to continue highlighting the important work that President Biden is doing to support the needs of Americans is a wise choice. I commend you for giving these stories top billing, because we all need to see them and propagate them to others. The stories about the former president are important, too, of course. But the best way to assure that he is not the NEXT president, is to highlight the good things that President Biden is doing.
There is so much bad news out there about dRump that I get depressed often and just turn off the news. Robert Hubbell's and Simon Rosenberg's Substack newsletters offer me hope and I read them more often than the others. Thank you, Robert, for helping me maintain my sanity.
A really really good post, Robert. You continue to make this 'journey' do-able!! You are my go-to source for truth and comfort!! I'm so grateful to you and Jill for the herculean effort you put forth every day! God bless you.
Robert, thanks for firing us up this morning. Here is my letter to Ms. Bidgood in the NYT: Ms. Bidgood, having just read this article, I am compelled to point out that Joe Biden is EXACTLY the kind of candidate that the Democrats want and need on the abortion fight! There really is no comparison between Biden and Trump that makes sense. What would make more sense is an article that simply says “Trump is unfit for public office and should never be allowed in the White House again”. That is the crux of the issue of our time.
On abortion, the stark contrast between Biden and Trump is insurmountable. Biden has the wisdom of ages, and has seen the issue of abortion from all sides. But ultimately, he changed his stance on the Hyde Amendment and has become a champion for women in this country! There is no subterfuge in what he is doing. Just as he fights everyday for the average American to get a fair shake, he also fights to do the right thing for women and the freedom of their choices on their most intimate decisions. Donald Trump has only one motive: what will serve HIM best. It is the same with the abortion issue. He has switched from pro-choice, to pro-life, and now to no choice, turning it all back to the states - knowing full well just how cruel many red states will be in pronouncing what they demand that women do. Trump doesn’t care about the issue, or the womens’ lives, or what is right for the Constitutional protections in this country. Trump cares about his base putting him back into the White House, where he can work even more destruction on all that we hold dear. This issue, as with most issues, Trump just wants to create soundbites and win votes.
Biden is a devout Christian. And for someone with that sort of personal conviction to understand and fight for womens’ rights is the best of all worlds. It means he did his own soul-searching to come to his current stance. That makes him stronger. Imagine a former Republican who realizes that his or her party has gone off the rails, and thus becomes a Democrat. That person makes for a compelling new Democrat, because he or she has seen “the other side.”
Don’t try to soft peddle just how egregious Trump is when it comes to women. Why not write the other article whose headline I suggested in the opening paragraph. We expect better from The NY Times. Just remember: if Trump wins, your newspaper is likely one of his first targets to close down the free press. Now sleep on that before you write another article that makes him seem normal.
Thanks again to Robert for motivating another letter to the NYT. The subject header was "Kudos to Ms Bidgood:
Dear Ms Bidgood,
Yesterday the NY Times Pitchbot cited without comment your article headlined "Two Imperfect Messengers on Abortion," a tribute, it seems, to an instance of self-parody that the real thing, that is, real parody, cannot surpass: https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1778394891430555979
I urge you, Ms Bidgood, not to mistake the lazy clichés of bothsiderism for objective journalism. The framing of your article, that in regards to women's reproductive freedom, this election presents a choice between two imperfect candidates, is beside the point. That's really not saying anything, For what issue does not involve such a choice?
Rather, rise to the journalistic moment and note a real contrast: between Donald Trump, who has cynically exploited opposition to abortion and is now caught in a trap of his own making, and Joe Biden, who has emerged as a consistent advocate of women's reproductive freedom despite his own sincerely held religious beliefs.
Good journalism is objective. Objectivity, however, entails observing closely and telling it as it is, not falling back on hackneyed false equivalences between the two candidates. Democracy is at stake in this election. Do your job as a member of the Fourth Estate in our democracy.
Mr. Hubbell, thank you for the outstanding manner in which you deliver the facts about our president and the past one. I am refreshed and energized by your approach. I plan to write Ms. Bidgood at the NYT.
Seeing Mike Johnson go to Mar a Lago for direction on how to proceed on all fronts is disheartening. How does he feel about kissing the ring of a serial philanderer and demonstrated liar who changes is mind as the winds blow? Knowing he's running scared from Marjorie Taylor Greene is both understandable and disheartening. Knowing he stands firmly behind an abortion ban because his religion is right advances a sick domination of church over state. I despair. So: Thank you Robert for trying so hard and so consistently to breathe optimism into a thoroughly dispiriting political cauldron.
I take a certain perverse pleasure in seeing the famously moral Speaker bending his knee to the famously amoral former President. It proves that: at a price, everything is for sale.
The link below is a repeat and update of the signatures needed to pass the Discharge Petition. I will be contacting several names either by postcard or phone call (if I can get through). I have been told that Gaza is holding up some reps from signing, to which I say: Noted. As well, there are those who will not sign for other reasons. The way I see it is, I don't have to argue my case to these reps. I just have to make my voice heard. You all are free to do the same.
Thank you, Lynell. I agree. Both President Biden and Minority Leader Jeffries have urged the House to pass the Senate-approved bill HR 815 as soon as possible. It's the only feasible path forward, as all other proposals will only lead to more disputes and more delays.
The discharge petition needs 218 signatures. I have suggested to those who oppose the bill because of Gaza that they sign the petition to allow a vote on the floor, and then to vote against it if that's their preference. Ukraine should not be punished for Israel's war.
So far, only only one Republican has signed the discharge petition.
Everyone reading this can help by calling Republican Representatives and urging them to sign the discharge petition for HR 815, to expedite delivery of aid to Ukraine without further delay. Once the bill passes the House it would go directly to the President for his signature and immediately become law.
Call the U S Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121 to connect with any Representative, and call Speaker Johnson's office (202) 225-4000 to insist that he encourage Republicans to sign the petition.
For phone numbers of about about two dozen specific Republicans known to support Ukraine aid, please click on recent Ukraine-related posts at:
I love what you said, Jerry, about having them sign to get the bill on the floor for a vote and then vote against it if that's their preference. That sentiment is in keeping with what I have written on my postcards, quoting HCR:
"Having a democracy does not mean you always win; it means you get to have a say."
I have finished writing postcards to the Democrats who have not signed. Now, I will start on the Republicans (long list!) I will incorporate your suggestion, for sure!
The old newspaper adage with a new twist: if it bleeds it leads…even if it is a blatant lie. If, as the Washington Post says, democracy dies in darkness, why is the paper turning off the lights?
Robert, Thank you for providing email addresses to reporters and others to whom we can write to express our dissatisfaction with their willingness to project Trump as a legitimate candidate to serve as POTUS again! I wrote to Bidgood and will continue to communicate with all other addresses you provide. Bravo!!
Manuel Oliver, the father of a Parkland shooting victim was able to purchase an AR-15 at a gun show in Miami without a background check.His non-profit,Change the Ref, has produced a short film that highlights gun violence as the leading cause of death for children.Clip of the film is at the beginning of his interview with Acosta.Chilling…and very effective.
Contact your legislators, write Letters To Ed, talk to people about what is happening in your community. My Fl House Rep continues to push/sponsor bills that would lower age to own AR-15’s to 18….and NO one I talk to is aware! 📣✍️📲
Thank you for the link to the interview. The interview was excellent and the preview of the short film is incredibly powerful. I urge other readers to click on the link to watch the interview.
Bravo to you for choosing responsible presentation over 'Likes' and pass-alongs. The difference in apparent response levels says more about how we, your readers, are conditioned to respond than about your writing. It may also indicate a desire to build a chorus of disaprobation of the failed insurrectionist that even his acolytes in the media can't avoid hearing.
I'm among those who, in 2015, advocated ignoring the lord of Merde-a-Lardo with the expectation that he would fade from lack of attention. It's too late for that now, and your approach is the only one that is viable and effective.
Robert I have reposted your comments on the gun control measures Biden is taking and highlighted for my fellow North Carolinians how Thomas Tillis will try to undermine this. We will remember when he runs again and tries to pose himself as much more down the middle than he was.
Robert, if you haven't already done so, I highly recommend reading yesterday's Status Quo. Substack. He interviews a psychologist who analyzes Trump's extreme dementia issues in great depth and it's very enlightening. I don't have a link since I deleted it, but you can find it pretty easily. And once again, thank you so much for all that you do. I'm amazed and inspired every single day by your words and commitment.
Please join The Civics Center on Thursday April 18 at 6PM ET to hear from Laura W. Brill, Founder and CEO, in conversation with political strategist and commentator Simon Rosenberg. The Civics Center is working to register the youngest voters at their high schools before Election Day. With registration deadlines just a few months away, the 2024 high school graduation season is a critical time to ensure 18-year-olds are registered and ready to vote. Registration increases the likelihood of youth turnout: 86% of registered youth turned out in 2020.
The Civics Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that provides free training and resources to help make voter registration part of every high school in America.
Please attend the event and support them financially if you can. The more resources they have the more students they can register before graduation this spring with their Cap, Gown and Ballot initiative.
Some day (maybe in 2025!?) when we have Democratic majorities in Congress and Biden is still President, we can overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This is a law, passed in 2005 during the Bush Administration, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. This law has got to go! Weapons manufacturers should not have this government-granted protection from liability, which no other product has.
I have taken Robert's suggestion and written to Ms. Bidgood at the NYT:
Ms. Bidgood:
My name is Gary Stewart. I have had 135 LTE’s published in 29 states since 2018.
I read your recent article “Two Imperfect Messengers Take On Abortion.”
I also follow Robert Hubbell’s substack blog.
I have been progressively more concerned about the relentless normalization of Donald Trump and false equivalence in comparisons between Trump nd Biden in the NYT this election year.
With all due respect, I consider what Mr. Hubbell had to say about your article was accurate:
"Over the last 25 years, Biden has been a staunch and vocal supporter of reproductive liberty for women despite his genuinely held religious views. That, in Bidgood’s opinion, makes Joe Biden an 'imperfect messenger' on equal footing with the candidate who brags about killing the constitutional right to right to reproductive liberty and openly supports total bans on abortion.
Bidgood’s article is irresponsible journalism because in striving for balance, she distorts reality and does violence to the facts. Donald Trump is a menace to women’s rights, while Joe Biden is a champion for women in all things—including their right to reproductive liberty. Bidgood’s article is misleading in suggesting otherwise."
I have to add to this the fact that Trump’s backing away from the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling about the 1864 Arizona law is cynical waffling, a classic Trump transactional political message that has no more consistency or credibility than anything he says. It is naive and dangerous to treat his statements as carrying any more weight than a puff of smoke. Trump’s opinion on abortion is whatever he sees as in his interest at that moment, and he has zero personal involvement in the issue beyond that.
Your article represents misguided both-sidesism, and the NYT’s dogged dedication to this anachronism is excessive and leads to framing that is totally out of step with reality.
Hi, Gary. You are an inspiration! 135 letters to the editor is a real accomplishment!
I pray the NYT pays attention to your letter. It is very good. False equivalencies are the current manifestation of the GOP's stock in trade. I'd expect more from the newspaper of record.
A reason I felt I had to give up my subscription. I cannot be a part of this unethical reporting any more.
With all that said, it's still better than any alternatives
Not in my opinion. I gave up my NYT subscription in 2022 - their “red wave” nonsense was lazy, disingenuous garbage posing as political insight.
I subscribed to NYT in 1975 as a Journalism student. Forty seven years later, I could not, in good conscience, send $200 plus for garbage journalism my J school profs would have rejected out of hand.
It’s true that I rely on Robert and other Substack authors to identify the garbage now and give me a chance to send notes to editors and authors. And I understand why Robert and others here continue to subscribe.
But watching the very calculated slide of America’s Newspaper of Record into pleasing MAGA by offering false equivalence such as this article does, is beyond my tolerance.
No, it isn’t better than the alternatives. The Guardian is far from perfect but their coverage is generally fair and consistent. Their coverage of the climate crisis is extraordinary - way better than any other mainstream media outlet.
And they don’t cater to MAGA.
I agree with your assessment of The Guardian and had already started subscribing last fall when it became clear that the previously trusted mainstream outlets had become garbage journalism.
The editorial board of the WSJ put me in a similar position vis-a-vis that publication. Couldn't do it. Responding to a WSJ editorial was torture - it was as if literally every sentence required a response to address the misleading, incomplete, cynical, demonstrably wrong assertions, claims and speculations.
Yes. I got tired of writing complaints to the NYT, and reading their inane responses. It was their responses that led me to believe they are incapable of self awareness. I also looked at their board, and it is oligarch kingdom, which clearly rules the paper, who is not even giving a thin pretense of balance.
Linda: Were you writing to journalists or to editors or to the corporate board? (At least you got some responses - the emails I submit go unanswered, despite being respectful and my contact information is included.) As to the oligarch kingdom, is that the corporate board you are referring to?
I have written to journalists, editors, and just responded to the comments in articles. I had a journalist write me back rather than publish what I said. I was complaining about them polling in the first place as inappropriate for a news organization because it is creating news, not just reporting on it. I also said we did not have enough background information on the poll to judge the veracity for ourselves, and he went on to tell me more details, but not the statistical kind I would have liked to have, like what were the questions, what was the scale, and how did they get their poll takers? I know that I don't respond to any polls at this point wanting to avoid trolls, etc... and not trusting these sorts of things, even if they come t my door. It is different if a university, since my family works for one, were to solicit us for a study. They would have to have us sign papers, they would commit to certain protections, and ethical nature of the study. Not so the random poll. It would be good if there were less polling and more discussing of the issues. I believe I have written editors more than once, and I have not written the board, or a specific board member. I guess it would be Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman of the NYT board.
This is a good response. You have encouraged me to do the same. Thank you!!
Well done, Gary Stewart!
editorial@nytimes.com
Gary, while this is a great LTE it leaves me with a question I have asked previously when Robert points out the failure of The NY Times as they seem so willing to treat the current moment with equivalency as they report on or comment about President Joseph R. Biden and Donald J. Trump. There is NO circumstance where this continuing flawed journalism is acceptable.
Thus, my question: How can we readers create and promote a call to action to make clear that not only Jess Bidgood but the entire Times coterie of editors and journalists must step up to speak consistently and forceful on the matters of immense public concern and wellbeing for the future of the United States? Let’s not be limited to abortion as we call them to account and demand responsible journalism.
To that end, we must create a thunderous roar of displeasure with the Fourth Estate to get their full attention and commitment to advance a clear, indisputable record of the danger of Trump, misinformation, and the publicly available plans known as The Project 2025 - each constituting a major threat to democracy and global security.
I sympathize with your frustration on this. To my knowledge, the NYT has never been subjected to an overwhelming challenge to its formulation of journalism by its readers. As I said in another post, even a small impact on the publication can help, given its reach and how its way of doing things is seen as a model for other publications. The messaging should go to the journalists and the editors and the owners, letting them know that many of their consistent subscribers are appalled at the normalization of Trump. I also agree with you that there is power in numbers - "a thunderous roar of displeasure", insisting upon recognition and consistent of calling out of "Trump, misinformation, and the publicly available plans known as The Project 2025."
What a great response! I hope she pays attention to it.
Thanks for taking the initiative but with all do respect the letter you wrote needs to go to the Editorial Board which controls what gets published.
I"ve written several letters to Sulzberger ---- To use a crude phrase - 'It's like pissing against the wind'. Not that we should not continue to write -
Is Sulzberger Jr. still in charge,or is it Junior's son? If it's Jr. I certainly agree with you. If Jr.'s son has taken over, I don't know wht he's like.
My take is the more emails they get the more likely it is that it might have an effect. Even a small difference in the format of an article, a slight shift toward the "truth sandwich", a slight alteration in phrasing to make the non-equivalence of Biden and Trump, might help - after all, those slight differences are magnified as they go to many, many recipients. I agree that emails to the editorial board, the news department editors, and the journalists, themselves are necessary. Every little bit helps. There is also the impact on the friends and family of the writers like us, and they see the motivation and the goal, and that can get communicated to others well, uncluding friends and family in other states.
superb.
Robert, your decision to continue highlighting the important work that President Biden is doing to support the needs of Americans is a wise choice. I commend you for giving these stories top billing, because we all need to see them and propagate them to others. The stories about the former president are important, too, of course. But the best way to assure that he is not the NEXT president, is to highlight the good things that President Biden is doing.
There is so much bad news out there about dRump that I get depressed often and just turn off the news. Robert Hubbell's and Simon Rosenberg's Substack newsletters offer me hope and I read them more often than the others. Thank you, Robert, for helping me maintain my sanity.
A really really good post, Robert. You continue to make this 'journey' do-able!! You are my go-to source for truth and comfort!! I'm so grateful to you and Jill for the herculean effort you put forth every day! God bless you.
Robert, thanks for firing us up this morning. Here is my letter to Ms. Bidgood in the NYT: Ms. Bidgood, having just read this article, I am compelled to point out that Joe Biden is EXACTLY the kind of candidate that the Democrats want and need on the abortion fight! There really is no comparison between Biden and Trump that makes sense. What would make more sense is an article that simply says “Trump is unfit for public office and should never be allowed in the White House again”. That is the crux of the issue of our time.
On abortion, the stark contrast between Biden and Trump is insurmountable. Biden has the wisdom of ages, and has seen the issue of abortion from all sides. But ultimately, he changed his stance on the Hyde Amendment and has become a champion for women in this country! There is no subterfuge in what he is doing. Just as he fights everyday for the average American to get a fair shake, he also fights to do the right thing for women and the freedom of their choices on their most intimate decisions. Donald Trump has only one motive: what will serve HIM best. It is the same with the abortion issue. He has switched from pro-choice, to pro-life, and now to no choice, turning it all back to the states - knowing full well just how cruel many red states will be in pronouncing what they demand that women do. Trump doesn’t care about the issue, or the womens’ lives, or what is right for the Constitutional protections in this country. Trump cares about his base putting him back into the White House, where he can work even more destruction on all that we hold dear. This issue, as with most issues, Trump just wants to create soundbites and win votes.
Biden is a devout Christian. And for someone with that sort of personal conviction to understand and fight for womens’ rights is the best of all worlds. It means he did his own soul-searching to come to his current stance. That makes him stronger. Imagine a former Republican who realizes that his or her party has gone off the rails, and thus becomes a Democrat. That person makes for a compelling new Democrat, because he or she has seen “the other side.”
Don’t try to soft peddle just how egregious Trump is when it comes to women. Why not write the other article whose headline I suggested in the opening paragraph. We expect better from The NY Times. Just remember: if Trump wins, your newspaper is likely one of his first targets to close down the free press. Now sleep on that before you write another article that makes him seem normal.
Bravo!
Excellent!
Eloquent and to the point. Thank you!
Thanks again to Robert for motivating another letter to the NYT. The subject header was "Kudos to Ms Bidgood:
Dear Ms Bidgood,
Yesterday the NY Times Pitchbot cited without comment your article headlined "Two Imperfect Messengers on Abortion," a tribute, it seems, to an instance of self-parody that the real thing, that is, real parody, cannot surpass: https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1778394891430555979
I urge you, Ms Bidgood, not to mistake the lazy clichés of bothsiderism for objective journalism. The framing of your article, that in regards to women's reproductive freedom, this election presents a choice between two imperfect candidates, is beside the point. That's really not saying anything, For what issue does not involve such a choice?
Rather, rise to the journalistic moment and note a real contrast: between Donald Trump, who has cynically exploited opposition to abortion and is now caught in a trap of his own making, and Joe Biden, who has emerged as a consistent advocate of women's reproductive freedom despite his own sincerely held religious beliefs.
Good journalism is objective. Objectivity, however, entails observing closely and telling it as it is, not falling back on hackneyed false equivalences between the two candidates. Democracy is at stake in this election. Do your job as a member of the Fourth Estate in our democracy.
Sincerely,
William Owens
Athens, OH
Well done.
Very good letter! Thank you!
That is an excellent letter!
Mr. Hubbell, thank you for the outstanding manner in which you deliver the facts about our president and the past one. I am refreshed and energized by your approach. I plan to write Ms. Bidgood at the NYT.
Seeing Mike Johnson go to Mar a Lago for direction on how to proceed on all fronts is disheartening. How does he feel about kissing the ring of a serial philanderer and demonstrated liar who changes is mind as the winds blow? Knowing he's running scared from Marjorie Taylor Greene is both understandable and disheartening. Knowing he stands firmly behind an abortion ban because his religion is right advances a sick domination of church over state. I despair. So: Thank you Robert for trying so hard and so consistently to breathe optimism into a thoroughly dispiriting political cauldron.
He opportunistically feels it is necessary. So much for seven mountain mandates. Mar-a-Lago is flat as far as I know.
I take a certain perverse pleasure in seeing the famously moral Speaker bending his knee to the famously amoral former President. It proves that: at a price, everything is for sale.
The current speaker needs to form a support group with Mike Pence.
Thanks for all, Robert!
The link below is a repeat and update of the signatures needed to pass the Discharge Petition. I will be contacting several names either by postcard or phone call (if I can get through). I have been told that Gaza is holding up some reps from signing, to which I say: Noted. As well, there are those who will not sign for other reasons. The way I see it is, I don't have to argue my case to these reps. I just have to make my voice heard. You all are free to do the same.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaMB3k5Z37OAM8HEMhDtwbLGzwn1wDXSNcoTmXEJbpfbacfp-m0fJGyb36lcNOhgqGO5-bArbibS5a/pubhtml?gid=614612044&single=true
Hi, Lynell. Thank you for posting the information regarding the discharge petition. An important reminder!
Thank you, Lynell. I agree. Both President Biden and Minority Leader Jeffries have urged the House to pass the Senate-approved bill HR 815 as soon as possible. It's the only feasible path forward, as all other proposals will only lead to more disputes and more delays.
The discharge petition needs 218 signatures. I have suggested to those who oppose the bill because of Gaza that they sign the petition to allow a vote on the floor, and then to vote against it if that's their preference. Ukraine should not be punished for Israel's war.
So far, only only one Republican has signed the discharge petition.
Everyone reading this can help by calling Republican Representatives and urging them to sign the discharge petition for HR 815, to expedite delivery of aid to Ukraine without further delay. Once the bill passes the House it would go directly to the President for his signature and immediately become law.
Call the U S Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121 to connect with any Representative, and call Speaker Johnson's office (202) 225-4000 to insist that he encourage Republicans to sign the petition.
For phone numbers of about about two dozen specific Republicans known to support Ukraine aid, please click on recent Ukraine-related posts at:
https://www.FeathersOfHope.net
.
I love what you said, Jerry, about having them sign to get the bill on the floor for a vote and then vote against it if that's their preference. That sentiment is in keeping with what I have written on my postcards, quoting HCR:
"Having a democracy does not mean you always win; it means you get to have a say."
I have finished writing postcards to the Democrats who have not signed. Now, I will start on the Republicans (long list!) I will incorporate your suggestion, for sure!
The old newspaper adage with a new twist: if it bleeds it leads…even if it is a blatant lie. If, as the Washington Post says, democracy dies in darkness, why is the paper turning off the lights?
Robert, Thank you for providing email addresses to reporters and others to whom we can write to express our dissatisfaction with their willingness to project Trump as a legitimate candidate to serve as POTUS again! I wrote to Bidgood and will continue to communicate with all other addresses you provide. Bravo!!
Manuel Oliver, the father of a Parkland shooting victim was able to purchase an AR-15 at a gun show in Miami without a background check.His non-profit,Change the Ref, has produced a short film that highlights gun violence as the leading cause of death for children.Clip of the film is at the beginning of his interview with Acosta.Chilling…and very effective.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2024/04/12/manuel-oliver-parkland-school-shooting-american-cancer-story-acosta-nr.cnn
Contact your legislators, write Letters To Ed, talk to people about what is happening in your community. My Fl House Rep continues to push/sponsor bills that would lower age to own AR-15’s to 18….and NO one I talk to is aware! 📣✍️📲
Thank you for the link to the interview. The interview was excellent and the preview of the short film is incredibly powerful. I urge other readers to click on the link to watch the interview.
Bravo to you for choosing responsible presentation over 'Likes' and pass-alongs. The difference in apparent response levels says more about how we, your readers, are conditioned to respond than about your writing. It may also indicate a desire to build a chorus of disaprobation of the failed insurrectionist that even his acolytes in the media can't avoid hearing.
I'm among those who, in 2015, advocated ignoring the lord of Merde-a-Lardo with the expectation that he would fade from lack of attention. It's too late for that now, and your approach is the only one that is viable and effective.
Robert I have reposted your comments on the gun control measures Biden is taking and highlighted for my fellow North Carolinians how Thomas Tillis will try to undermine this. We will remember when he runs again and tries to pose himself as much more down the middle than he was.
Tillis is a skunk.
Robert, if you haven't already done so, I highly recommend reading yesterday's Status Quo. Substack. He interviews a psychologist who analyzes Trump's extreme dementia issues in great depth and it's very enlightening. I don't have a link since I deleted it, but you can find it pretty easily. And once again, thank you so much for all that you do. I'm amazed and inspired every single day by your words and commitment.
Here's the link:
https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/john-gartner-trump-cognitive-decline?r=1zr8b&utm_medium=ios&fbclid=IwAR0E6tz8YKAIpAsnvbot4epdQvrPtvCh6qG6hNYyusyIL9Co_p999LrXej0_aem_AbRc1ZEgR5iEUuTodx38WrNz9h1ZWTFP-X3kgeDQYXcByhJMvV7KKtdaNiFO0hSEMDI4Uc_D8sAeLbFBb45w1evU&triedRedirect=true
That was an eye-popping piece. Very specific, full of explanations with examples of what Trump's diminishing language means.
THAT was indeed enlightening!
Robert posted about this event last week —
Please join The Civics Center on Thursday April 18 at 6PM ET to hear from Laura W. Brill, Founder and CEO, in conversation with political strategist and commentator Simon Rosenberg. The Civics Center is working to register the youngest voters at their high schools before Election Day. With registration deadlines just a few months away, the 2024 high school graduation season is a critical time to ensure 18-year-olds are registered and ready to vote. Registration increases the likelihood of youth turnout: 86% of registered youth turned out in 2020.
The Civics Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that provides free training and resources to help make voter registration part of every high school in America.
Please attend the event and support them financially if you can. The more resources they have the more students they can register before graduation this spring with their Cap, Gown and Ballot initiative.
https://secure.everyaction.com/FUfrCQiFbUG7_0lFl0gzcg2
Hi, jenny. Thank you for the reminder. I will re-run the promotion this evening.
Thank you!
I have volunteered with The Civics Center - it is a great group!
You do good work Jennifer. Thank you 🙏
Some day (maybe in 2025!?) when we have Democratic majorities in Congress and Biden is still President, we can overturn the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This is a law, passed in 2005 during the Bush Administration, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. This law has got to go! Weapons manufacturers should not have this government-granted protection from liability, which no other product has.
Thank you for the reminder about the PCLAA.
This is one of the actions that Giffords Law Center - as in Gabby Giffords - endorses. giffords.org