The headline was very misleading to what the opinion piece said. The author doesn’t argue that Trump has the better character but that he can campaign that Harris has a bad character. He likens her to Kerry flip flopping. He says Harris is “weak” because she has changed her positions over the years. We know that Trump believes that if a lie is repeated it becomes accepted. So if Donald keeps saying Harris is weak, it will become a character issue that the campaign will need to respond to, mission accomplished, for him.
So we are warned and we need to inoculate the citizens against the “Harris is weak” and other slurs. Michele Obama did that by telling us not to be distracted by the coming onslaught of attacks.
My response to whatever they throw at us is “don’t change the subject. Donald is dangerously unqualified to be President. Sit down. I’ll tell you why. It’s going to take a while. Rapist, racist, insurrectionist, stolen documents, liar, demented, corrupt, business fraud, ended Roe, project 2025, dictator day one, cancel constitution, emolument clause, felon, oh, and when his wife had a baby he had sex with Stormy.
Some of this is old news, but that doesn’t make it less relevant.”
If I was a Republican I would be too ashamed to vote for Trump.
Ok, DK Brooklyn. You note: 'He says Harris is “weak” because she has changed her positions over the years.' What is the best-practices communications tactic to counter such a claim? Re-focus it. Take the "weak because of flip-flopping" argument and apply it directly and aggressively to Trump! Shift the focus of the dialogue immediately. Take it to offense. WHO has flip-flopped more than Trump??? Is he for or against abortion? Is he going to or not going to debate? Has he caused his own transition plan, Project 2025, to be written, or has he never heard of it before? Under no circumstances should Harris engage with this ridiculous allegation. The MAGAs are going back to things she said five, six, maybe ten years ago. Do not give it any oxygen. Take the topic--flip flopping which equals weakness--and apply it immediately, strongly, relentlessly, to the bully himself. It will stick quite well, I think. And maybe to JD Vance. He, for instance, changed his name three times. To a bully, is that flip-flopping? Is that weak? (No rational person would necessarily think that, but just imagine what MAGAs would say if Harris had changed her name three times). Please let us abandon our 20th-century notion that you can fight abuse with facts. You can't. You must fight it with strategy. For too long we have put ourselves at the mercy of their hate tactics without fighting back with any degree of efficacy. Let's be efficient now. I hope the Harris team knows these basic communications strategies. I have hope that they do.
Good points. Re: "flip flopping" = weakness. Another perspective. Look at conservative women who have changed their mind on abortion after they had severe obstetric complications, creating disability and almost death in some cases, with a wanted previable pregnancy. Several changed their strong opinion against, and joined the fight to preserve reproductive freedom. I have never understood why with new information, growth, maturity one can't change their opinions when a poilitical figure.
Whatever he says, “don’t change the subject, we know why you want to, you are totally unqualified and a disgrace. If I were a Republican I’d be too ashamed to vote for this rapist. Don’t get me started.”
Not until they lose enough readers for it to seriously impact the bottom line. I cancelled my subscription close to a year ago. I get almost daily emails asking me to re-subscribe for $50 for the first year. Not going back!
I did read that they have been pressured to modify the misleading click-bait headlines in their online edition so that it better reflected the content of the article.
I love Robert's comment that the wife of a NYT employee begged him to mitigate his criticism so her husband would still have a job, and he refused this unsavory request, standing on principle and urging her instead to take a stand against the NYT's lies, distortions, and failure to cover important issues. The woman claimed that the many people who wrote to vociferously criticize the NYT for lying, distorting, and failing to cover issues--mostly readers of this newsletter?--did significant damage to the NYT's bottom line. Let's keep up the pressure! We didn't buy grapes when Cesar Chavez needed us. Let's not buy news when the fourth estate needs us!
Part of the problem is that so much of the NYTimes is superb, beyond politics. E.g. Science section, investigative journalism pieces, international news (far beyond what our local newspapers cover).
But George, you could get that other stuff from anywhere--Vogue, GQ, Science, Nature, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera. Those things don't influence the future of democracy. The NYT lying, and using its sterling 20th-century reputation for evil, could significantly destroy our democracy. Get your cultural stuff elsewhere. The NYT has to change or it has to go. And I doubt it will change, with its corporate owners apparently committed to the MAGA poison.
Such screw-ups get me closer and closer to ending my subscription...except for, as you say, the superb reporting otherwise, plus the fact that I've been reading the NYTimes ever since I learned to read, which means for somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 years. It would be tough to give it up. So I just make my voice heard there in comments, and on Facebook I voice my displeasure at particular biased articles or misleading headlines.
Mim. Give it up. You were probably fond of using rotary telephones, too. But we don't do it that way anymore. The NYT is corrupt. Cancel your subscription. Get your culture elsewhere. Who knows, you might actually like getting your "other stuff" elsewhere. You're never too old to learn and change.
I agree with George Ferrick. Much of the NYT is excellent, and should not be thrown overboard (same for WaPo). And its coverage is hard to replicate by reading fistfuls of other publications and blogs (including Today’s Edition).
My response to the NYT’s and WaPo’s biased coverages of American politics and Israel/Hamas/etc. has been to add the Times of Israel to my reading list (it’s free, intelligent, and open about its viewpoints).
I sent a severe response to Lowry’s piece, questioning NYT’s unethical behavior and challenging them to interview Trump. As I said before, the slug line below their name should now read “All The News That’s Unfit To Print”. Incomprehensible.
No, I think The NY Times will not right itself, Marcy. I have given up hope that that will happen as long as they bear grudges against the ONLY candidates who are telling the truth. And why? Because their vanity has not been fed! It is dangerous, what they are doing!
I imagine the NYT's biases are less about grudges against Harris and Democrats and more about the owner's political preferences. Anyone with great wealth or political power who believes they'll be able to keep either or both during a second Trump term is foolishly absurdly wrong.
I read The Hill, which provides mixed coverage; some normal, some MAGA gag gunk. I looked up their ownership. Nextstar, who gives 75% donations to MAGA Republicans and 25% donations to Democrats. Playing both sides against the middle, but with a clear bias to MAGA.
On another Substack, a fairly common occurrence again today is that we all talked about how we got rid of our NYT subscriptions and some of us gave reasons.
"A senior House Democrat said the Harris campaign has "asked all members if they are interested in being surrogates," – really? What a strange approach. They should rather instill in the minds of each and every Democratic candidate (not just the incumbents) the notion that they are part of a joint effort to save democracy and to ensure that after a win in November Harris and Walz have a Congress to work with and to deliver.
Quite understandably so far all the attention has been concentrated on "the ticket" but now is the time to launch a true national campaign to strive for a victory on all levels. And congressional candidates, on the national as well as the state and local level, are not "surrogates", they are part of the team. Harris and Walz should make sure to include them in their campaign events as prominently as possible. And to repeat a comment I made several weeks ago, candidates for national office should coordinate with and include state and local candidates in their events and, where possible, their ads and campaign clips. That would help the efforts to ensure democratic down-ballot voting.
Stefan, "surrogates" in this context simply means 'representatives of' , standing in for the candidates who cannot be everywhere at once. It's a smart strategy to reach more voters more often in more places, and it should include not just House members but all of us. We often hear that someone didn't fully participate in a campaign because "no one asked me".
Well, no excuses- we've all been asked, and we need all hands on deck. There is something for every person to do in this battle for the integrity of our democracy.
100% agree, Tom. Asking ALL the Dems to be surrogates is not a strange policy, it is a brilliant one. It would be naive to think all the Democrats in Congress know each other, talk to each other, or are in any way aware of each other. Harris reaching out explicitly to each of them and humbly requesting their help is true genius. Otherwise, they would feel they shouldn't interfere in her campaign, shouldn't say anything, etc. This way, they will have access to coordinated talking points so all Dems come across to the American people as being on the same page. They will know where to go, when to go there, and what to talk about when they get there. It's just another hopeful indication to me that she really knows what she's doing. Go Harris!
Well, okay. But Harris needs victory in the House and Senate, so she will be able to *enact and conduct* her programs. A broad view of the election is imperative.
Also, Michelle asked us at the convention: "Consider this your request to get involved in the campaign and DO SOMETHING. And don't tell me no one asked you, because I just did." (paraphrasing here.)
Wow, what an incredible idea, a team effort to win elections. I don't know when the Democrats forgot that elections are won locally, but your suggestion would certainly help get them back on track.
In a national program yesterday, several campaign managers said they have no way to communicate with the Harris campaign. By now, most campaigns should be entering the GOTV stage. Many managers still need volunteers, even in swing states.
Classes are available, through the DNC and National Democratic Training Committee, but few candidates take advantage of them. They have a Facebook group, but I'm banned from Facebook. Systems are available to address GOTV scientifically.
You might be interested in Blue Missouri, which is/has been funding candidates to run in GOP held offices. I’m from Missouri and have lots of family there. I wanted to do something to support Dems so my nieces/nephews and great nieces/nephews will have a chance for a better life. As soon as I learned about Blue Missouri many months ago I started donating monthly to help elect good candidates.
Thanks Angela. I've been part of Blue Missouri for several months also and am impressed with what has been accomplished so far. My concern is the disconnect between the national party operation, statewide, and local candidates. We need everyone who ran in a primary and wasn't successful to be publicly supportive of the nominees as we move toward November, and I haven't seen that so far. Of course a visit from Harris, Walz, or a high ranking supporter alongside Lucas Kunce, Crystal Quade, and Elad Gross would be nice too, and might be just the boost they need to win.
Absolutely. It's what happens here and in similar places on social media, but the value seems to elude the consultants and campaign managers who are committed to the idea of contributions as a proxy for votes and who have only disdain for the idea of direct contact between candidates and potential voters.
Surrogate means "in place of", so it's not the same thing to be on the same stage.
Many of the candidates had distanced themselves from Biden. This is an open invitation to embrace the messaging of Harris/Walz and stand in for them in places they can't be.
Maybe this will highlight congressional member’s level of commitment so when perks/appointments/whatever are available to said members, the ‘good and faithful servants’ will be rewarded.
The DNC phone banks always promote down ballot candidates along with the Presidential ticket. They update the phone banks continuously (daily & as needed during any session). They’re addressing the battleground states and have very effective and short scripts so the message can be succinctly delivered.
Here in San Diego we also have coordinated campaigns where down ballot candidates join in on in-person events with a U.S. Congressional candidate’s event, for instance, to increase candidate recognition for the down ballot races. Mailers and door hangers list all of the Dems as well who are running nationally, and locally.
Also, I'm so impressed with all Robert Hubbell's great information on how to get involved at state and local levels. He's providing a grassroots coordination service that's only possible in our digital age. Another example is this comments section to his newsletter. I feel so connected to you Dems and independent thinkers all over the country (and the world) because of it. And I get lots more information than I would have without this connection. Because of Robert, I contribute monthly to Somos Votantes, whom I devoutly help will organize the 17% of Latinos in my state of Arizona, to put Harris over the top and elect Ruben Gallego to the Senate as Arizona's second Democratic senator. If Gallego wins and Harris goes to the White House, with Arizona's Democratic governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, Arizona may no longer be a red state! Miracles never cease. But it's going to be extra tough because the MAGAs are really scared and lashing out viciously.
Good Points, Stefan. We need to see that, as you say, "congressional candidates, on the national as well as the state and local level, are not "surrogates", they are part of the team" and their success in, for example, getting out the vote in their districts will help in increasing the numbers who vote for the top of ticket. And we have to continue to encourage all voters to go down the ballot for Democrats and up the ballots from congressional representatives to the top of the ticket. Every 10 new voters going for Democrats in each county of North Carolina could mean over 1000 votes in the state.
When I first read it I actually thought the Lowry op-ed was intended as comedy or sarcasm. I eventually concluded that character does not mean what Lowry seems to think it means. You are correct, Robert, that the Times doesn't know what character means either. What a train wreck! Sad.
Just read,thanks to Robert’s link, and also had same thoughts until I saw Lowry was editor of National Review.
I dumped NYT several months ago but was able to read recent article about JD Vance’s conversion to Catholicism published in local news.It even puts a + spin on “childless cat ladies”.
“Becoming Catholic for Mr. Vance, who was loosely raised as an evangelical, was a practical way to counter what he saw as elite values, especially secularism. He was drawn not just to the church’s theological ideas, but also to its teachings on family and social order and its desire to instill virtue in modern society.
That worldview served as a counterpoint to much of his messy childhood, and meshed with his own criticisms of contemporary America, from what he saw as the abandonment of workers to the unhappiness of “childless cat ladies.” It has also infused his politics, which seeks to advance a family-oriented, socially conservative future through economic populism and by standing with abortion opponents.”
That he's the editor of the National Review actually makes this worse. The guy has his own publication he can use to post his views - platforming him on the NYT communicates that the Times has aligned itself with the National Review. It's not the first op/ed he has done for them, either. Has the NYT ever had an op/ed from the editor of The Daily Beast? Slate? Salon?
Thank you for the gift link, Ally! What a tender and uncritical treatment of Vance's conversion. Joe Biden is a Catholic in the vein of Dorothy Day, an amazing humanitarian. Vance is a Catholic in the vein of Augustine of Hippo and later medieval thinkers, who despised women, revered hair shirts and self-flagellation, and thought all humans were evil sinners. Not the kind of Catholic I want anything to do with.
Good point on Biden's Catholicism, Christina, but I think you might be giving Vance too much credit or not enough to Augustine. Neither Trump nor Vance think "all humans [are] evil sinners" nor are they prone to self-flagellation. Trump and Vance NEVER think they have sinned nor think they deserve self-flagellation. They are idolatrous in that they substitute the false god of Donald Trump for the real understanding of the godliness that flows through humble people, immigrants, doorknockers, and postcard writer.
Great! I used to be a Catholic, too, until I saw that Catholicism has its big size twelve foot firmly planted on the necks of the world's women (which it prefers supine), and although its widespread sexual abuse of the world's children has been exposed, it has condoned and normalized that. I guess that fits Vance's values pretty well.
This, from the response: "It’s one thing to sell your soul cheaply. It’s another to keep taking out second and third mortgages on it until all that’s left is debt and shame." says it all.
thank you for this link! Sometimes, the connections between sources isn't evident. I followed up on The Atlantic article before contacting the NYT with my continuing and increasingly outraged responses. Most people scan headlines without reading articles. They are evidently purposefully misguiding people, and endangering lives.
You're welcome. In my letter to the NYT, I pointed out that I now group them with Fox News in conversations about hostile news sources, as in, "Who should Harris do long form interviews with? Not hostile outlets like Fox News or the NYT."
Ellen, thanks for the link to The Atlantic. I am struck by Nichols' argument, maybe characterized by this sentence: "...a colleague of Lowry’s at National Review, Dan McLaughlin, has for years argued that he could never vote for Trump but that he could not vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris, either." Sort of puts a finger on it for me. These kind of people just hate everything! They hate Trump, they hate Democrats, they hate women, they hate Black people, they hate immigrants, they are people of hate who want to live in a culture of hate and they perpetuate a politics of hate. I for one reject that. I think everything we saw at the DNC rejects that. I think the American people reject that.
I was very inspired by Robert’s way of addressing the plea from the NT Times spouse to stop denigrating the Times where many employees still do great work. Roberts’ response was scary to me because I’m not an overt boat-rocker but it really was spot on. It lacked codependency or enabling. In our political world, we do need to start going to the source of issues instead of waiting for some great mom or dad symbol who we think has more clout or courage to do the work. The “work” is all of ours. If we don’t like a corporation, we need to let it know why and maybe take our business elsewhere. If we don’t like Citizens United, we work to reverse it but even more so, we should get involved with boots on the ground, actual human action powered campaigning which is volunteer and requires no money driven super pacs for huge ad campaigns. If we don’t like a media outlet, how about we stage a huge protest outside the Times building? Let them know we’re there. ( it might get coverage!)
I appreciate the backbone that Robert models for us. I have lots of backbone but I want more.
Very well put. Thank you, Amy! I fully agree. I had to stop doing postcards because I have a hand condition that makes writing with pens/markers/whatever difficult. But I can type, and I have put considerable energy into calling out various influential media directly to their management or editors (not just griping in comments elsewhere). I refuse to engage in name-calling, but I do speak directly to the poor journalistic judgement, the misleading headlines, and the kind of lop-sided coverage that is a disservice to readers/listeners/viewers, and point out where journalistic ethics are breached.
The fact that I still subscribe to some of them gives me more credibility in writing (though I've peeled away from some, and regard my sub to WaPo as access to some of their best writers, such as Jennifer Rubin). I keep my sanity by supporting Propublica, the Brennan Center, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and some personal favorites such as High Country News and my local community-supported and owned newspaper, plus you all and several other substacks.
And I keep writing about this approach here and on other forums about this approach to taking concerns directly to media management or the editors, and the best ways to do it. One thing I'll add is that it is also important to let those writers who are doing a good job know directly if I can, and say thanks, even if their venue sucks.
Thank you, Annie! I want to learn more about how to contact media outlets and pundits. I’m not very internet savvy (I’m allergic!!!) so I go down rabbit holes with how to contact them. But it’s on my to do list for action, to learn. I so appreciate what you are doing!!!
Amy, love love love your post! You are so right, it is up to us, and the NYT spouse, and me, not to cave in to bullies but to stand up with whatever courage we can muster for our principles and for what is right and what will help the greatest number of suffering humans. I have been thinking lately of flying an America flag with a Harris/Walz banner outside my house in my fairly red Arizona town. Not sure i have the courage yet. Your post is helping me move in that direction.
Oh Christina!! We’re building that courage together, for sure. 6 years ago I worked on the campaign for our county’s first ever Latino Sheriff and we improbably, won big. As things started to get MAGA ugly, our local Indivisible groups were able to call him directly to ask for more back up at rally’s. He understood the threats out there and the Sheriff presence helped us to have the courage to stay visible. If you decide to fly your flags, please walk me out to plant them with you( in spirit) and I know your courage will be multiplied by many others nationwide making the same courageous action. And…if it’s just too much and you can’t… no worries because someone else will and we have many ways to stand up that are safe, but I’m excited just hearing what you strive to do!! We’re gonna win this!!
Morning, Ally! As I commented before, I think Jack Smith is just the man for the job. I hope his appeal to the 11th Circuit will hold sway (be successful)!
I think Smith's reasoning to not call for Cannon's removal is if he succeeds is he will have the satisfaction of her having to face him again in court. Karma!
Actually, I think that it was a good move to keep it from being used as if it were a personal vendetta. Now the court is free to evaluate Jack's argument and make the decision about the judge's rulings without Jack being in the crossfire. Jack's argument is persuasive, and if the court agrees, they almost certainly will confront the question of whether this judge should continue on this case. There is no way they can be unaware of the problem, but I think Jack was wise not to include it in his appeal about the case itself.
Agree, Stefan, Cannon has to go. She is a sorry excuse for a jurist, regardless of her political affiliations. Plenty of conservative Republicans do a fine job upholding the law of the land. She's just a moral prostitute.
The NYTimes appears bent on self-immolation; I felt it was important to let them know:
TO: NY Times
Your guest editorial yesterday by Rich Lowry ("Trump Can Win On Character" ) was patently unserious and is a discredit to your paper.
Lowry fails to mention in an essay asserting that Trump can “win on character” that Trump has been civilly adjudicated to be a sexual abuser, that he has been convicted of 34 felony counts of fraud, that he led an attempted coup, that he tried to bribe Ukraine, that he cheated on all three of his wives, that he has been indicted for unlawfully retaining defense secret documents, and that Robert Mueller found evidence that Trump obstructed justice on numerous occasions (just to name a few of Trump's character issues).
Such one-sided, biased ad hominem attacks are amateur, untruthful and unethical; serious journalists do not stoop to this, and serious news media do not publish such unqualified material.
What has happened to the once-reliable 'paper of record'? Your glaringly-biased reporting does you and our country a profound disservice; it means we can no longer take the paper seriously, and will find other sources that understand the importance of professionalism, integrity and honest journalism.
Cancel my subscription; I won't waste another dime on such nonsense.
And can I get an 'Amen'! Spot on Tom, as with all the other assessments of the Times in this thread. Everybody, please, I hate cancel culture as much as the next person, but it seems there is no other way to get a message to the NYT and WaPo other than cancelling your subscription. Publishing this nonsense goes beyond both-sidesing; it's clearly advocating, it's malpractice, it's pathetically unprofessional. So why would anyone pay for that in a newspaper? There are so many other professional, honest news sources out there, Substack, The Atlantic, Geez even NPR. Everyone, please switch and let's support journalism with integrity.
The could care less about your letters. You have to cancel your subscription. Even if it's just until after the election. Hitting them in the pocketbook is all they care about!
Robert writes this one for the ages: "In my view, the headline “Trump can win on character” and the substance of the article shows contempt for the readers of the Times and a reckless disregard for the truth—at a time when truth is one of the few remaining bulwarks of democracy." You'd have to have been reading the NY Post (Murdoch owned) for ages as I did on the commute to appreciate what a whack-job Rich Lowry is and always has been. He's part of the national infectious disease incubated by the Fox machine.
I LOVE your ongoing commentary about the truly biased mainstream media and, specifically, The New York Times. It’s obvious that the mainstream media has failed democracy and the American people in its both-sidism coverage. Donald is not a normal candidate. He is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a serial adulterer, he stiffs people who work for him, he has ties to the Russian mob that NO ONE in journalism cares to pursue. So MANY AVENUES OF CORRUPTION, yet they treat him with kid gloves. It’s BEST if we all call out our failing media. I love the exposure of the old journalism model as just not working in today’s world. Rolling Stone, Ms., Teen Vogue are all telling the truth and I’m considering shifting my media dollars to them. And boy I love that the Democrats are employing LOTS of surrogates. It’s obvious. I can see it. That’s the way to message. Let’s go!
I had to just add another comment. Just before I went out to walk my dogs this morning, I was watching morning Joe. And the last thing I saw was Katty K talking about McMaster‘s new book. And she said that McMaster said something to the effect of, Europe will just have to get over it if Trump is elected. And she added that Europe will just have to do things that Trump likes …such as taking him to the golf course, feed him hamburgers. I’ve never heard anything so effing stupid in my life. Just keep normalizing this complete moron for the United States presidency. The media is so failed. Michelle Obama was correct. This particular old white guy just failed upward. The great majority of us cannot do that. If we lose a job, or go bankrupt, we pay for it. Michelle Obama was correct in her speech.
McMasters may have said Europe will "have to get over it" (I didn't see that quote), but if he did, it wasn't in a good way. He's terrified at the thought of TFG being re-elected. His disdain for the former guy couldn't have been clearer.
I'm not quite sure what McMaster said...but Kathy K response was absolutely lame....really lame. Meet TFG where he is? Do things he likes? C'mon. That's a cop-out. Katty K acting as if this toddler mind sb catered to...push back already!
One of my Brit friends called it Chamberlain all over again. He and his family are aghast at the thought that Trump is even on the ballot again. They asked me "What is wrong with Americans that they are letting him run again?)
Agree violently, Kathy. I would just suggest, when we write about it, calling it the MAGA mainstream media. Let's call it what it is. Mainstream media is too honorable and positive for what it's become. When you're in an abusive relationship, it becomes important to name things for what they are.
I agree with you. This is hard for me. I use to revere American journalism. It is difficult to watch this deliberate downfall. There have to be money trails for this bias? I just don't know...I do hope there is some sort of a reckoning about what has happened to American journalism....when? how?
Bob, thanks for passing on the tip to click on your photo to enlarge it. I had a serious "duh" moment on that one!
I think you nailed the implications of the Times Lowry piece well.
Rich Lowry's path has been clear since 2016. He faced a choice on how to respond to the rise of Trump. He made that choice and now gets to live with it. Why the Times opinion managers would think a deceptively titled piece like this was "important journalism" for their readers is difficult to understand.
Did they hope people would read it thinking "Wow! Has Rich been to the mountaintop?". It's hard for me not to think that article and the title they gave it was intended to do just that. It's a nasty way to treat your readers, for sure.
The NYT is run by a Nepo baby who has never had to live in the real world. While I’m guessing he thinks Trump will provide tax breaks for him AKA the mighty billionaire, he misses the fact that Trump turns his anger and vows retribution at random. You’ll get yours, Mr. NYT, as will your children and grandchildren.
I assume you mean A.G. Sulzberger. I googled the NYT and found this: "It is important to note that The Times is primarily funded by subscriptions and advertising." So let's hit 'em where they live. Boycott the NYT. Cancel your subscription. And after that keep writing them about how screwed up they are and how they're screwing up the most wonderful democracy in the history of the world.
It's great that the Harris campaign has legally taken on the Georgia election board as it has. Reading Heather Cox Richardson's treatment yesterday of the many ways extremist Republicans are using laws at the state level to suppress the vote was pretty unnerving. Second, I'm flat out heartbroken over the demise of the NYT, to which I ended my two decade subscription in disgust almost a year ago. It was a great paper, with great writing, and while some of that surely still exists, its front page is any longer only a clickbaiting rag, and not to be trusted. Shame on the bastards.
I would add Maureen Dowd's Sunday editorial to The Times "unserious" and unenlightened approach to VP Harris' campaign. Dowd says Harris has to "prove" that she can do the job. Requiring women- especially ones of color- to "prove" their competency to perform important work is a classic technique of preemptive disqualification. Curiously Dowd is not demanding Donald Trump to "prove" his fitness to competently perform the duties of the presidency. Given the comparative qualifications and public office performance of Harris vs. Trump, the obvious question is, "Why Not?"
I think you misread Maureen Dowd. Of course she very much dislikes Trump. And it is literally true that Harris will have to prove she can “do the job”, since she hasn’t held it, yet. No sexism there.
I’ve read Maureen Dowd’s articles for many years. She has always been pro-woman.
Thank you, Robert for another thoughtful and accurate summation.
I so enjoy your beautiful photographs. Thank you for adding them to each newsletter.
I do have one question, is there some light source ( a bright "sun" like star) that is allowing us to see them or is that something in the photographic process that lights up and colors these nebulas? I always thought space was very dark and wondered how we could see these.
As soon as I saw Lowry’s piece in NYT yesterday, I went in to leave a comment, only to see that the comments had just been turned off—there were 2000 of them. The most popular were along the lines that the article must have been misplaced from The Onion, and other less complimentary remarks. So the editors got an earful.
I’ve found that the WAPO has the same problem. Not enough band width to handle their disgruntled readers. I will not stop trying. When will they get it?
Among other notable parts of this letter I especially note your criticism of the NYT. It is well expressed and argued - and dead right!
Bravo for you. I wonder if the NYT will ever right itself?
The headline was very misleading to what the opinion piece said. The author doesn’t argue that Trump has the better character but that he can campaign that Harris has a bad character. He likens her to Kerry flip flopping. He says Harris is “weak” because she has changed her positions over the years. We know that Trump believes that if a lie is repeated it becomes accepted. So if Donald keeps saying Harris is weak, it will become a character issue that the campaign will need to respond to, mission accomplished, for him.
So we are warned and we need to inoculate the citizens against the “Harris is weak” and other slurs. Michele Obama did that by telling us not to be distracted by the coming onslaught of attacks.
My response to whatever they throw at us is “don’t change the subject. Donald is dangerously unqualified to be President. Sit down. I’ll tell you why. It’s going to take a while. Rapist, racist, insurrectionist, stolen documents, liar, demented, corrupt, business fraud, ended Roe, project 2025, dictator day one, cancel constitution, emolument clause, felon, oh, and when his wife had a baby he had sex with Stormy.
Some of this is old news, but that doesn’t make it less relevant.”
If I was a Republican I would be too ashamed to vote for Trump.
Ok, DK Brooklyn. You note: 'He says Harris is “weak” because she has changed her positions over the years.' What is the best-practices communications tactic to counter such a claim? Re-focus it. Take the "weak because of flip-flopping" argument and apply it directly and aggressively to Trump! Shift the focus of the dialogue immediately. Take it to offense. WHO has flip-flopped more than Trump??? Is he for or against abortion? Is he going to or not going to debate? Has he caused his own transition plan, Project 2025, to be written, or has he never heard of it before? Under no circumstances should Harris engage with this ridiculous allegation. The MAGAs are going back to things she said five, six, maybe ten years ago. Do not give it any oxygen. Take the topic--flip flopping which equals weakness--and apply it immediately, strongly, relentlessly, to the bully himself. It will stick quite well, I think. And maybe to JD Vance. He, for instance, changed his name three times. To a bully, is that flip-flopping? Is that weak? (No rational person would necessarily think that, but just imagine what MAGAs would say if Harris had changed her name three times). Please let us abandon our 20th-century notion that you can fight abuse with facts. You can't. You must fight it with strategy. For too long we have put ourselves at the mercy of their hate tactics without fighting back with any degree of efficacy. Let's be efficient now. I hope the Harris team knows these basic communications strategies. I have hope that they do.
Good points. Re: "flip flopping" = weakness. Another perspective. Look at conservative women who have changed their mind on abortion after they had severe obstetric complications, creating disability and almost death in some cases, with a wanted previable pregnancy. Several changed their strong opinion against, and joined the fight to preserve reproductive freedom. I have never understood why with new information, growth, maturity one can't change their opinions when a poilitical figure.
Whatever he says, “don’t change the subject, we know why you want to, you are totally unqualified and a disgrace. If I were a Republican I’d be too ashamed to vote for this rapist. Don’t get me started.”
I love your list!! Now, if I could only put it to a musical score. Where are you, Randy Rainbow?
I applaud you if you are able to get anyone to sit down, DK, and listen to you list the many reasons they should vote for Harris/Walz.
I wonder if the NYT will ever right itself?
⬆️
Not until they lose enough readers for it to seriously impact the bottom line. I cancelled my subscription close to a year ago. I get almost daily emails asking me to re-subscribe for $50 for the first year. Not going back!
I did read that they have been pressured to modify the misleading click-bait headlines in their online edition so that it better reflected the content of the article.
I love Robert's comment that the wife of a NYT employee begged him to mitigate his criticism so her husband would still have a job, and he refused this unsavory request, standing on principle and urging her instead to take a stand against the NYT's lies, distortions, and failure to cover important issues. The woman claimed that the many people who wrote to vociferously criticize the NYT for lying, distorting, and failing to cover issues--mostly readers of this newsletter?--did significant damage to the NYT's bottom line. Let's keep up the pressure! We didn't buy grapes when Cesar Chavez needed us. Let's not buy news when the fourth estate needs us!
Part of the problem is that so much of the NYTimes is superb, beyond politics. E.g. Science section, investigative journalism pieces, international news (far beyond what our local newspapers cover).
And then they screw up majorly like this.
But George, you could get that other stuff from anywhere--Vogue, GQ, Science, Nature, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera. Those things don't influence the future of democracy. The NYT lying, and using its sterling 20th-century reputation for evil, could significantly destroy our democracy. Get your cultural stuff elsewhere. The NYT has to change or it has to go. And I doubt it will change, with its corporate owners apparently committed to the MAGA poison.
Such screw-ups get me closer and closer to ending my subscription...except for, as you say, the superb reporting otherwise, plus the fact that I've been reading the NYTimes ever since I learned to read, which means for somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 years. It would be tough to give it up. So I just make my voice heard there in comments, and on Facebook I voice my displeasure at particular biased articles or misleading headlines.
Mim. Give it up. You were probably fond of using rotary telephones, too. But we don't do it that way anymore. The NYT is corrupt. Cancel your subscription. Get your culture elsewhere. Who knows, you might actually like getting your "other stuff" elsewhere. You're never too old to learn and change.
I agree with George Ferrick. Much of the NYT is excellent, and should not be thrown overboard (same for WaPo). And its coverage is hard to replicate by reading fistfuls of other publications and blogs (including Today’s Edition).
My response to the NYT’s and WaPo’s biased coverages of American politics and Israel/Hamas/etc. has been to add the Times of Israel to my reading list (it’s free, intelligent, and open about its viewpoints).
I sent a severe response to Lowry’s piece, questioning NYT’s unethical behavior and challenging them to interview Trump. As I said before, the slug line below their name should now read “All The News That’s Unfit To Print”. Incomprehensible.
What she said!
No, I think The NY Times will not right itself, Marcy. I have given up hope that that will happen as long as they bear grudges against the ONLY candidates who are telling the truth. And why? Because their vanity has not been fed! It is dangerous, what they are doing!
I imagine the NYT's biases are less about grudges against Harris and Democrats and more about the owner's political preferences. Anyone with great wealth or political power who believes they'll be able to keep either or both during a second Trump term is foolishly absurdly wrong.
How much money do these boobs need? FFS, their lives and souls must be so barren.
I agree that this is another reason.
Vanity, and corporate MAGA ownership?
I read The Hill, which provides mixed coverage; some normal, some MAGA gag gunk. I looked up their ownership. Nextstar, who gives 75% donations to MAGA Republicans and 25% donations to Democrats. Playing both sides against the middle, but with a clear bias to MAGA.
THIS!
Just read a criticism of the same piece in The Bulwark. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/why-did-the-new-york-times-let-itself?r=f0qfn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
On another Substack, a fairly common occurrence again today is that we all talked about how we got rid of our NYT subscriptions and some of us gave reasons.
I am liking the Guardian.
Did that with the Guardian last year. Gave them six months, nothing great.
"A senior House Democrat said the Harris campaign has "asked all members if they are interested in being surrogates," – really? What a strange approach. They should rather instill in the minds of each and every Democratic candidate (not just the incumbents) the notion that they are part of a joint effort to save democracy and to ensure that after a win in November Harris and Walz have a Congress to work with and to deliver.
Quite understandably so far all the attention has been concentrated on "the ticket" but now is the time to launch a true national campaign to strive for a victory on all levels. And congressional candidates, on the national as well as the state and local level, are not "surrogates", they are part of the team. Harris and Walz should make sure to include them in their campaign events as prominently as possible. And to repeat a comment I made several weeks ago, candidates for national office should coordinate with and include state and local candidates in their events and, where possible, their ads and campaign clips. That would help the efforts to ensure democratic down-ballot voting.
Stefan, "surrogates" in this context simply means 'representatives of' , standing in for the candidates who cannot be everywhere at once. It's a smart strategy to reach more voters more often in more places, and it should include not just House members but all of us. We often hear that someone didn't fully participate in a campaign because "no one asked me".
Well, no excuses- we've all been asked, and we need all hands on deck. There is something for every person to do in this battle for the integrity of our democracy.
100% agree, Tom. Asking ALL the Dems to be surrogates is not a strange policy, it is a brilliant one. It would be naive to think all the Democrats in Congress know each other, talk to each other, or are in any way aware of each other. Harris reaching out explicitly to each of them and humbly requesting their help is true genius. Otherwise, they would feel they shouldn't interfere in her campaign, shouldn't say anything, etc. This way, they will have access to coordinated talking points so all Dems come across to the American people as being on the same page. They will know where to go, when to go there, and what to talk about when they get there. It's just another hopeful indication to me that she really knows what she's doing. Go Harris!
Well, okay. But Harris needs victory in the House and Senate, so she will be able to *enact and conduct* her programs. A broad view of the election is imperative.
A broad view of the election is imperative.
Also, Michelle asked us at the convention: "Consider this your request to get involved in the campaign and DO SOMETHING. And don't tell me no one asked you, because I just did." (paraphrasing here.)
Wow, what an incredible idea, a team effort to win elections. I don't know when the Democrats forgot that elections are won locally, but your suggestion would certainly help get them back on track.
In a national program yesterday, several campaign managers said they have no way to communicate with the Harris campaign. By now, most campaigns should be entering the GOTV stage. Many managers still need volunteers, even in swing states.
Classes are available, through the DNC and National Democratic Training Committee, but few candidates take advantage of them. They have a Facebook group, but I'm banned from Facebook. Systems are available to address GOTV scientifically.
Among the programs I support is Forgotten Democrats. https://forgottendemocrats.org/
When we call on FT6 we ask for volunteers. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
I know you're on Hopium - share this comment with Simon (if he doesn't already know)? He should be able to help.
Daniel, I love that you're banned from Facebook! -;) (I think I am too.)
You’re banned off of FB for how long?
They want my SS and Passport. I won't give them.
Dave,
You might be interested in Blue Missouri, which is/has been funding candidates to run in GOP held offices. I’m from Missouri and have lots of family there. I wanted to do something to support Dems so my nieces/nephews and great nieces/nephews will have a chance for a better life. As soon as I learned about Blue Missouri many months ago I started donating monthly to help elect good candidates.
Here’s a link to the org:
https://bluemissouri.org/
Thanks Angela. I've been part of Blue Missouri for several months also and am impressed with what has been accomplished so far. My concern is the disconnect between the national party operation, statewide, and local candidates. We need everyone who ran in a primary and wasn't successful to be publicly supportive of the nominees as we move toward November, and I haven't seen that so far. Of course a visit from Harris, Walz, or a high ranking supporter alongside Lucas Kunce, Crystal Quade, and Elad Gross would be nice too, and might be just the boost they need to win.
Networking?
Absolutely. It's what happens here and in similar places on social media, but the value seems to elude the consultants and campaign managers who are committed to the idea of contributions as a proxy for votes and who have only disdain for the idea of direct contact between candidates and potential voters.
I think they do, right? The livestream doesn't always show it, but very often local folks will speak at these rallies before Walz and Harris.
Surrogate means "in place of", so it's not the same thing to be on the same stage.
Many of the candidates had distanced themselves from Biden. This is an open invitation to embrace the messaging of Harris/Walz and stand in for them in places they can't be.
Maybe this will highlight congressional member’s level of commitment so when perks/appointments/whatever are available to said members, the ‘good and faithful servants’ will be rewarded.
Sure seems like there’s enough money in the Harris/Walz campaign to help down ballot people, right? I mean they have $520 million in their coffers!
Stefan,
The DNC phone banks always promote down ballot candidates along with the Presidential ticket. They update the phone banks continuously (daily & as needed during any session). They’re addressing the battleground states and have very effective and short scripts so the message can be succinctly delivered.
Here in San Diego we also have coordinated campaigns where down ballot candidates join in on in-person events with a U.S. Congressional candidate’s event, for instance, to increase candidate recognition for the down ballot races. Mailers and door hangers list all of the Dems as well who are running nationally, and locally.
Also, I'm so impressed with all Robert Hubbell's great information on how to get involved at state and local levels. He's providing a grassroots coordination service that's only possible in our digital age. Another example is this comments section to his newsletter. I feel so connected to you Dems and independent thinkers all over the country (and the world) because of it. And I get lots more information than I would have without this connection. Because of Robert, I contribute monthly to Somos Votantes, whom I devoutly help will organize the 17% of Latinos in my state of Arizona, to put Harris over the top and elect Ruben Gallego to the Senate as Arizona's second Democratic senator. If Gallego wins and Harris goes to the White House, with Arizona's Democratic governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, Arizona may no longer be a red state! Miracles never cease. But it's going to be extra tough because the MAGAs are really scared and lashing out viciously.
oops hope, not help
Good Points, Stefan. We need to see that, as you say, "congressional candidates, on the national as well as the state and local level, are not "surrogates", they are part of the team" and their success in, for example, getting out the vote in their districts will help in increasing the numbers who vote for the top of ticket. And we have to continue to encourage all voters to go down the ballot for Democrats and up the ballots from congressional representatives to the top of the ticket. Every 10 new voters going for Democrats in each county of North Carolina could mean over 1000 votes in the state.
When I first read it I actually thought the Lowry op-ed was intended as comedy or sarcasm. I eventually concluded that character does not mean what Lowry seems to think it means. You are correct, Robert, that the Times doesn't know what character means either. What a train wreck! Sad.
.
Lowry calls Harris “a phony.” Like who wrote this, Holden Caulfield? It beggars belief.
Love your comment, Stephen! So adolescent. Another sign of desperation on the part of Republicans?
Just read,thanks to Robert’s link, and also had same thoughts until I saw Lowry was editor of National Review.
I dumped NYT several months ago but was able to read recent article about JD Vance’s conversion to Catholicism published in local news.It even puts a + spin on “childless cat ladies”.
“Becoming Catholic for Mr. Vance, who was loosely raised as an evangelical, was a practical way to counter what he saw as elite values, especially secularism. He was drawn not just to the church’s theological ideas, but also to its teachings on family and social order and its desire to instill virtue in modern society.
That worldview served as a counterpoint to much of his messy childhood, and meshed with his own criticisms of contemporary America, from what he saw as the abandonment of workers to the unhappiness of “childless cat ladies.” It has also infused his politics, which seeks to advance a family-oriented, socially conservative future through economic populism and by standing with abortion opponents.”
Behind a paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/jd-vance-catholic-church-conversion.html
That he's the editor of the National Review actually makes this worse. The guy has his own publication he can use to post his views - platforming him on the NYT communicates that the Times has aligned itself with the National Review. It's not the first op/ed he has done for them, either. Has the NYT ever had an op/ed from the editor of The Daily Beast? Slate? Salon?
Gee, Joe, I don't think so.
Of course not, Joe!
Gifted link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/25/us/jd-vance-catholic-church-conversion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GE4.pZLV.1zkgyy38Einc&smid=url-share
Thank you for the gift link, Ally! What a tender and uncritical treatment of Vance's conversion. Joe Biden is a Catholic in the vein of Dorothy Day, an amazing humanitarian. Vance is a Catholic in the vein of Augustine of Hippo and later medieval thinkers, who despised women, revered hair shirts and self-flagellation, and thought all humans were evil sinners. Not the kind of Catholic I want anything to do with.
Good point on Biden's Catholicism, Christina, but I think you might be giving Vance too much credit or not enough to Augustine. Neither Trump nor Vance think "all humans [are] evil sinners" nor are they prone to self-flagellation. Trump and Vance NEVER think they have sinned nor think they deserve self-flagellation. They are idolatrous in that they substitute the false god of Donald Trump for the real understanding of the godliness that flows through humble people, immigrants, doorknockers, and postcard writer.
thi
Thanks, Ally !
Great! I used to be a Catholic, too, until I saw that Catholicism has its big size twelve foot firmly planted on the necks of the world's women (which it prefers supine), and although its widespread sexual abuse of the world's children has been exposed, it has condoned and normalized that. I guess that fits Vance's values pretty well.
Rich Lowry has indeed perfected the patented wrinkled nose sneer of W. F. Bucklry Jr.
as I wrote a few minutes ago.
YES! more Andy Borowitz than op-ed
You mean like written by Jeff Tiedrich? He got seep into it yesterday.
I highly recommend Tom Nichols' response in The Atlantic to Rich Lowry's howler: https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/08/the-conservatives-who-sold-their-souls-for-trump/679623/?gift=c0PacIygyhytNL2Bi8YyZO2nofcUbewrvmCg3fevS2w&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
It's a shame about the NYT. I canceled months ago, and I'm not going back.
This, from the response: "It’s one thing to sell your soul cheaply. It’s another to keep taking out second and third mortgages on it until all that’s left is debt and shame." says it all.
That's a good one but this was my favorite:
"But principles are sometimes burdensome things; that’s part of what makes them principles."
thank you for this link! Sometimes, the connections between sources isn't evident. I followed up on The Atlantic article before contacting the NYT with my continuing and increasingly outraged responses. Most people scan headlines without reading articles. They are evidently purposefully misguiding people, and endangering lives.
You're welcome. In my letter to the NYT, I pointed out that I now group them with Fox News in conversations about hostile news sources, as in, "Who should Harris do long form interviews with? Not hostile outlets like Fox News or the NYT."
The Atlantic is a great publication. I cancelled in a purge of unread subscriptions and then reversed myself.
Ellen, thanks for the link to The Atlantic. I am struck by Nichols' argument, maybe characterized by this sentence: "...a colleague of Lowry’s at National Review, Dan McLaughlin, has for years argued that he could never vote for Trump but that he could not vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris, either." Sort of puts a finger on it for me. These kind of people just hate everything! They hate Trump, they hate Democrats, they hate women, they hate Black people, they hate immigrants, they are people of hate who want to live in a culture of hate and they perpetuate a politics of hate. I for one reject that. I think everything we saw at the DNC rejects that. I think the American people reject that.
(and kudos for canceling your NYT subscription!)
Thanks for the link. Nichols is one of the best.
Thanks for the link, Ellen. A very good take on Lowry and his ilk.
Atlantic won't let you in without subscribing (very expensive!).
Try this, Tom:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/08/the-conservatives-who-sold-their-souls-for-trump/679623/?gift=aFbN6PR_6hTlYUVlokJksFsYnt9zWTFZfFpe0FZQZHI&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Sorry--it's supposed to be a gift link.
Worked for me. Great article- thanks for posting!
Thank you. Worked for me too!
Gift link worked for me.
Morning!
I was very inspired by Robert’s way of addressing the plea from the NT Times spouse to stop denigrating the Times where many employees still do great work. Roberts’ response was scary to me because I’m not an overt boat-rocker but it really was spot on. It lacked codependency or enabling. In our political world, we do need to start going to the source of issues instead of waiting for some great mom or dad symbol who we think has more clout or courage to do the work. The “work” is all of ours. If we don’t like a corporation, we need to let it know why and maybe take our business elsewhere. If we don’t like Citizens United, we work to reverse it but even more so, we should get involved with boots on the ground, actual human action powered campaigning which is volunteer and requires no money driven super pacs for huge ad campaigns. If we don’t like a media outlet, how about we stage a huge protest outside the Times building? Let them know we’re there. ( it might get coverage!)
I appreciate the backbone that Robert models for us. I have lots of backbone but I want more.
Very well put. Thank you, Amy! I fully agree. I had to stop doing postcards because I have a hand condition that makes writing with pens/markers/whatever difficult. But I can type, and I have put considerable energy into calling out various influential media directly to their management or editors (not just griping in comments elsewhere). I refuse to engage in name-calling, but I do speak directly to the poor journalistic judgement, the misleading headlines, and the kind of lop-sided coverage that is a disservice to readers/listeners/viewers, and point out where journalistic ethics are breached.
The fact that I still subscribe to some of them gives me more credibility in writing (though I've peeled away from some, and regard my sub to WaPo as access to some of their best writers, such as Jennifer Rubin). I keep my sanity by supporting Propublica, the Brennan Center, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and some personal favorites such as High Country News and my local community-supported and owned newspaper, plus you all and several other substacks.
And I keep writing about this approach here and on other forums about this approach to taking concerns directly to media management or the editors, and the best ways to do it. One thing I'll add is that it is also important to let those writers who are doing a good job know directly if I can, and say thanks, even if their venue sucks.
Thank you, Annie! I want to learn more about how to contact media outlets and pundits. I’m not very internet savvy (I’m allergic!!!) so I go down rabbit holes with how to contact them. But it’s on my to do list for action, to learn. I so appreciate what you are doing!!!
Amy, love love love your post! You are so right, it is up to us, and the NYT spouse, and me, not to cave in to bullies but to stand up with whatever courage we can muster for our principles and for what is right and what will help the greatest number of suffering humans. I have been thinking lately of flying an America flag with a Harris/Walz banner outside my house in my fairly red Arizona town. Not sure i have the courage yet. Your post is helping me move in that direction.
Oh Christina!! We’re building that courage together, for sure. 6 years ago I worked on the campaign for our county’s first ever Latino Sheriff and we improbably, won big. As things started to get MAGA ugly, our local Indivisible groups were able to call him directly to ask for more back up at rally’s. He understood the threats out there and the Sheriff presence helped us to have the courage to stay visible. If you decide to fly your flags, please walk me out to plant them with you( in spirit) and I know your courage will be multiplied by many others nationwide making the same courageous action. And…if it’s just too much and you can’t… no worries because someone else will and we have many ways to stand up that are safe, but I’m excited just hearing what you strive to do!! We’re gonna win this!!
In her latest newsletter, Joyce Vance discusses/details Jack Smith's brief to the 11th Circuit regarding the classified documents case in Florida:
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/reading-jack-smiths-brief
Great link! I love her assessment.
Morning, Ally! As I commented before, I think Jack Smith is just the man for the job. I hope his appeal to the 11th Circuit will hold sway (be successful)!
I think Smith's reasoning to not call for Cannon's removal is if he succeeds is he will have the satisfaction of her having to face him again in court. Karma!
Actually, I think that it was a good move to keep it from being used as if it were a personal vendetta. Now the court is free to evaluate Jack's argument and make the decision about the judge's rulings without Jack being in the crossfire. Jack's argument is persuasive, and if the court agrees, they almost certainly will confront the question of whether this judge should continue on this case. There is no way they can be unaware of the problem, but I think Jack was wise not to include it in his appeal about the case itself.
True. But either way "Judge" Cannon has to go. Once the jury is seated she would find a pretext to declare a mistrial.
Agree, Stefan, Cannon has to go. She is a sorry excuse for a jurist, regardless of her political affiliations. Plenty of conservative Republicans do a fine job upholding the law of the land. She's just a moral prostitute.
Yes, Annie!
The NYTimes appears bent on self-immolation; I felt it was important to let them know:
TO: NY Times
Your guest editorial yesterday by Rich Lowry ("Trump Can Win On Character" ) was patently unserious and is a discredit to your paper.
Lowry fails to mention in an essay asserting that Trump can “win on character” that Trump has been civilly adjudicated to be a sexual abuser, that he has been convicted of 34 felony counts of fraud, that he led an attempted coup, that he tried to bribe Ukraine, that he cheated on all three of his wives, that he has been indicted for unlawfully retaining defense secret documents, and that Robert Mueller found evidence that Trump obstructed justice on numerous occasions (just to name a few of Trump's character issues).
Such one-sided, biased ad hominem attacks are amateur, untruthful and unethical; serious journalists do not stoop to this, and serious news media do not publish such unqualified material.
What has happened to the once-reliable 'paper of record'? Your glaringly-biased reporting does you and our country a profound disservice; it means we can no longer take the paper seriously, and will find other sources that understand the importance of professionalism, integrity and honest journalism.
Cancel my subscription; I won't waste another dime on such nonsense.
Yours-
And can I get an 'Amen'! Spot on Tom, as with all the other assessments of the Times in this thread. Everybody, please, I hate cancel culture as much as the next person, but it seems there is no other way to get a message to the NYT and WaPo other than cancelling your subscription. Publishing this nonsense goes beyond both-sidesing; it's clearly advocating, it's malpractice, it's pathetically unprofessional. So why would anyone pay for that in a newspaper? There are so many other professional, honest news sources out there, Substack, The Atlantic, Geez even NPR. Everyone, please switch and let's support journalism with integrity.
Maybe subscribe to The Guardian. They're not perfect but at least are rational.
Can we apply the same logic to the Sunday shows such as Meet the Press?
Bravo, Tom! Your wonderful letter brought tears to my eyes. (But you left out insurrectionist and five-time draft dodger!)
That one paragraph rundown of T💩p’s perfidiousness not discussed in the Times’ article is a hoot!
I sent a letter to the New York Times editorial staff congratulating them on their efforts to reach the respect level held by the New York Post.
And well done on the updated nebula picture without the Starfield. Simply beautiful.
The could care less about your letters. You have to cancel your subscription. Even if it's just until after the election. Hitting them in the pocketbook is all they care about!
I see what you did there! hahaha
Robert writes this one for the ages: "In my view, the headline “Trump can win on character” and the substance of the article shows contempt for the readers of the Times and a reckless disregard for the truth—at a time when truth is one of the few remaining bulwarks of democracy." You'd have to have been reading the NY Post (Murdoch owned) for ages as I did on the commute to appreciate what a whack-job Rich Lowry is and always has been. He's part of the national infectious disease incubated by the Fox machine.
I wonder if Rupert Murdoch is an investor in the NYT.
I LOVE your ongoing commentary about the truly biased mainstream media and, specifically, The New York Times. It’s obvious that the mainstream media has failed democracy and the American people in its both-sidism coverage. Donald is not a normal candidate. He is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a serial adulterer, he stiffs people who work for him, he has ties to the Russian mob that NO ONE in journalism cares to pursue. So MANY AVENUES OF CORRUPTION, yet they treat him with kid gloves. It’s BEST if we all call out our failing media. I love the exposure of the old journalism model as just not working in today’s world. Rolling Stone, Ms., Teen Vogue are all telling the truth and I’m considering shifting my media dollars to them. And boy I love that the Democrats are employing LOTS of surrogates. It’s obvious. I can see it. That’s the way to message. Let’s go!
I had to just add another comment. Just before I went out to walk my dogs this morning, I was watching morning Joe. And the last thing I saw was Katty K talking about McMaster‘s new book. And she said that McMaster said something to the effect of, Europe will just have to get over it if Trump is elected. And she added that Europe will just have to do things that Trump likes …such as taking him to the golf course, feed him hamburgers. I’ve never heard anything so effing stupid in my life. Just keep normalizing this complete moron for the United States presidency. The media is so failed. Michelle Obama was correct. This particular old white guy just failed upward. The great majority of us cannot do that. If we lose a job, or go bankrupt, we pay for it. Michelle Obama was correct in her speech.
McMasters may have said Europe will "have to get over it" (I didn't see that quote), but if he did, it wasn't in a good way. He's terrified at the thought of TFG being re-elected. His disdain for the former guy couldn't have been clearer.
I'm not quite sure what McMaster said...but Kathy K response was absolutely lame....really lame. Meet TFG where he is? Do things he likes? C'mon. That's a cop-out. Katty K acting as if this toddler mind sb catered to...push back already!
One of my Brit friends called it Chamberlain all over again. He and his family are aghast at the thought that Trump is even on the ballot again. They asked me "What is wrong with Americans that they are letting him run again?)
I must note, however, that he has not said he won't vote for TFG. So...cowardice over honor.
Agree violently, Kathy. I would just suggest, when we write about it, calling it the MAGA mainstream media. Let's call it what it is. Mainstream media is too honorable and positive for what it's become. When you're in an abusive relationship, it becomes important to name things for what they are.
I agree with you. This is hard for me. I use to revere American journalism. It is difficult to watch this deliberate downfall. There have to be money trails for this bias? I just don't know...I do hope there is some sort of a reckoning about what has happened to American journalism....when? how?
Bob, thanks for passing on the tip to click on your photo to enlarge it. I had a serious "duh" moment on that one!
I think you nailed the implications of the Times Lowry piece well.
Rich Lowry's path has been clear since 2016. He faced a choice on how to respond to the rise of Trump. He made that choice and now gets to live with it. Why the Times opinion managers would think a deceptively titled piece like this was "important journalism" for their readers is difficult to understand.
Did they hope people would read it thinking "Wow! Has Rich been to the mountaintop?". It's hard for me not to think that article and the title they gave it was intended to do just that. It's a nasty way to treat your readers, for sure.
The NYT is run by a Nepo baby who has never had to live in the real world. While I’m guessing he thinks Trump will provide tax breaks for him AKA the mighty billionaire, he misses the fact that Trump turns his anger and vows retribution at random. You’ll get yours, Mr. NYT, as will your children and grandchildren.
I assume you mean A.G. Sulzberger. I googled the NYT and found this: "It is important to note that The Times is primarily funded by subscriptions and advertising." So let's hit 'em where they live. Boycott the NYT. Cancel your subscription. And after that keep writing them about how screwed up they are and how they're screwing up the most wonderful democracy in the history of the world.
All the “news” that’s not fit to print.
A writer on this strand (forget who) said, the NYT "prints all the news that's fit." (to their extreme MAGA worldview. And not much on anything else.)
It's great that the Harris campaign has legally taken on the Georgia election board as it has. Reading Heather Cox Richardson's treatment yesterday of the many ways extremist Republicans are using laws at the state level to suppress the vote was pretty unnerving. Second, I'm flat out heartbroken over the demise of the NYT, to which I ended my two decade subscription in disgust almost a year ago. It was a great paper, with great writing, and while some of that surely still exists, its front page is any longer only a clickbaiting rag, and not to be trusted. Shame on the bastards.
They've hired Marc Elias.
I would add Maureen Dowd's Sunday editorial to The Times "unserious" and unenlightened approach to VP Harris' campaign. Dowd says Harris has to "prove" that she can do the job. Requiring women- especially ones of color- to "prove" their competency to perform important work is a classic technique of preemptive disqualification. Curiously Dowd is not demanding Donald Trump to "prove" his fitness to competently perform the duties of the presidency. Given the comparative qualifications and public office performance of Harris vs. Trump, the obvious question is, "Why Not?"
Maureen Dowd has been dead tome since 2016.
I think you misread Maureen Dowd. Of course she very much dislikes Trump. And it is literally true that Harris will have to prove she can “do the job”, since she hasn’t held it, yet. No sexism there.
I’ve read Maureen Dowd’s articles for many years. She has always been pro-woman.
Thank you, Robert for another thoughtful and accurate summation.
I so enjoy your beautiful photographs. Thank you for adding them to each newsletter.
I do have one question, is there some light source ( a bright "sun" like star) that is allowing us to see them or is that something in the photographic process that lights up and colors these nebulas? I always thought space was very dark and wondered how we could see these.
We are able to see stars because they generate light through basically the same processes that enable our Sun (a star) to generate light.
Most of outer space is dark (has no light sources), but stars within outer space, like our Sun, generate light
Thank you!
As soon as I saw Lowry’s piece in NYT yesterday, I went in to leave a comment, only to see that the comments had just been turned off—there were 2000 of them. The most popular were along the lines that the article must have been misplaced from The Onion, and other less complimentary remarks. So the editors got an earful.
I’ve found that the WAPO has the same problem. Not enough band width to handle their disgruntled readers. I will not stop trying. When will they get it?