I honestly can’t understand how you can write a whole column about the outrageousness of WaPo political reporting - and then conclude you’ll continue to subscribe and support them. The Post and the Times are actively threatening our Democracy, so I respectfully disagree with your concluding thoughts. Sure there are good reporters and columnists. I wish (speaking of wish lists) that they had the means and will to resign en masse. Become substack writers! Or find backers for a new paper. I’ve unsubscribed from both. Hope others will do that too.
If the Post goes away, Washington's leading newspaper will be The Washington Times. That would not be good. The Washington Post is home to Jennifer Rubin, Eugene Robinson, EJ Dionne, etc.
I subscribe to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Why? Because I want these entities to survive and live to see a better day of journalism. I also take the time to post comments extensively in the Washington Post and New York Times. Why bother? Because it is an opportunity to post the truth of things. I very frequently quote Rosenberg's statistics, Hubbell's legal takes on things and Richardson's summaries. And I keep on doing it.
Where else do we have that kind of opportunity to post the truth to a broader audience?
Also. I respect Jennifer Rubin, Alexandra Petri and various authors in the Post who speak out. The same for the Times with Jamelle Bouie and others. I want to support these journalists.
In summary I guess my best take is we don't take our ball and walk off the field when the game isn't going our way. We can reach an awful lot of people not in our orbit by commenting in these publications. Many times, someone will thank me for a truth/fact I posted.
I am with Barbara 100%. I still subscribe to the NYT and WaPo even though I am disgusted by both. I too take the time to post truth and facts in the comments section and on social media. I feel calmed and energized by calling out lies in any forum at any time. Small acts of resistance and truth telling have changed history for people who have faced much longer odds than us.
Totally agree - and I too daily write comments in response to the opinions. I don't know whether it gets to the trash - but it is calming for me and also helps me articulate the true stories. (Dukakis was way ahead of the polls at this point - and for Clinton - it was James Comey who dealt the death blow - not the 'inaccurate' polls.
The comment I posted to the editorial board was words to the effect of "Not to worry. When President Biden wins re-election in a landslide, he will continue to be your President along with the rest of us!"
Anytime Laine. My habit when I post in WaPo is to stay out of the culture war stuff and not get sucked into the troll stuff. I go to post information.
When you post in the New York Times click the little box under your comment that says "Email me when my comment is published and if a journalist responds."
The Times censors submittals. WaPo is a free for all.
I finally couldn't stand the NYT any more and canceled. A recent headline in the NYT read: "Biden Campaign Ad PAINTS Trump as a Felon"!!! (caps mine) What the hell is going on?!!!
I respectfully disagree with Robert’s continuing to support the WaPo but also conclude that his decision is something he has given great thought to.I finally left the NYT after many , many years with them as I could no longer abide by their whataboutism and shoddy Biden ageism.I stand by my decision and have never looked back.I know Robert’s continued backing of the WaPo is his and others choice and I respect that but I can no longer support this newspaper.
Yes. I have no issue with others continuing to support what they believe in. Everyone makes the right choice for themselves. I have been unemployed since January so I am very careful about "voting" with my hard-earned savings. I have had to unsub from some of the Substacks I loved bc of finances.
Your unsubscribing while understandable is not going to change the editorial decisions of the newspaper. The change happens when the respected writers and staff stand up and voice their displeasure.
Which appears to be happening. I have been dithering about whether or not I get enough out of the post to justify the sub cost on my low income. It goes back and forth. For now, I continue, first because I admire the staff who wrote the critique about their own management, and because many of them are fine reporters. I have learned which opinion writers are worth reading and focus on those who enlighten me. There are several columnists who are more than worthwhile and rise above the rest. So I continue to subscribe and read.
But I need to have at least one national newspaper with a finger on the pulse of America, with wide-ranging coverage. Not sure WaPo can continue to fill that role. If management follows through on the proposal of becoming DCs local newspaper on the one hand (it's original identity) with some sort of uber subscription that goes beyond that, it will have wandered into elitism- a long way from where it was when I started reading it, years ago.
Oddly, it may be the Guardian who will end up filling that gap. I've been reading it for years off and on. It has excellent writers and editors based in the states, and the capability to view things from beyond the WaDC silo. Go figure.
I forgot the Guardian! Thank you for reminding me of it. They still seem to be operating on the moral and journalistic high ground of late 20th century reporting. I also check the AP website which seems to still be reporting on the facts: https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024. Has anyone been reading the Cleveland Plain Dealer lately? Are they still decent?
It gets better. The New Republic reports that WaPo staff have formed a unit whose purpose is specifically to report on the doings (and misdoings) of the new management structure. Good for them. This definitely makes sticking with the Post worthwhile, at least for the time being.
Stephen, “editorial decisions of the newspaper” fails to capture what Today’s Edition describes: what amount to lies published as honest news.
If the public cannot trust the veracity of what should be straightforward news reports, then information darkness is descending, beginning with the very publication that announces, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.
I love my "Democracy Dies in Darkness" water bottle, but I may have to amend the phrase to read "Died"... "When WaPo went over to the Dark Side". I love it, but also always felt like at least part of their reaction was to the personal snubs of their reporters in early 45 press meets more than purely virtuously standing up for democracy. Bottom line stuff...
You can berate Robert for continuing to subscribe to the Post, but in fact we all depend on his willingness to do that. The deep journalism we admire has rarely sustained our great media outlets financially. In the old days it was classified ads and sports that paid journalism's bills. It's no coincidence that Craig Newmark (of Craig's List) has made journalism one of his philanthropic priorities. Journalism needs the help! It's always dangerous for an organization when people aren't willing to pay what it actually costs to do the work they value.
Point! I expect a significant chunk of the cost behind "it takes money to provide the journalism you all depend upon" I hear at the end of many substacks and newsletters is the cost of subscribing to a wide variety of sources.
Another way of looking at it for those who choose not to subscribe is Mr. Hubbell subscribes so you don't have to (which deprives WaPo of multiple subscriptions) and those who continue to do so should definitely write comments, letters to the writers, and to the editorial staff. All of those serve different positive functions.
I know what you mean - but I totally support Robert's continuing subscription. For me, it helps neutralize some of the toxic, destructive reporting. It's important to know what they are writing (of course I refuse to watch FOX) and for Robert to provide the information that makes clear the distortion. I KNOW it's terrible reporting, but Robert diligently digs deep and provides us the the back stories
I'm in agreement with you on this too. While I'm sure there are many good journalists there, they will have to ask themselves as their management is changing to a sensationalistic tabloid mindset whether they can continue to work there in good conscience. I suspect quite a few of them are already looking elsewhere for employment. The number one reason people leave a job is because of their manager. (Per a LinkedIn survey)
I appreciate your thinking on this, Victoria and JustRaven. I work in communications, and things in that world are changing fast. The ways we grew up with are no longer working. Newspapers may, sad and depressing as it seems to me, be a thing of the past. Everything is fragmented now, everyone in their own bubble of news, music, art, hobbies (fetishes?). You can find a group with members across the world who share your ideas, your likes, your interests, and stay in that echo-chamber forever, never having to take in any input, any divergent ideas, from anywhere outside your bubble. I think that's what's happening with the MAGA supporters. They literally are bombarded, through their own choice, by their own echo-chamber screaming about the corrupt Biden crime family, Biden's urging trillions of criminal Latinos to enter the U.S. every day, how Biden has caused the stock market to crash, wages and jobs to plummet, etc. etc. They don't do critical thinking. They don't even read any more, they just skim headlines and listen to sound bites and look at cartoonish graphics. That's how they get their news. Millions of Americans. My point here is, newspapers, like video rental stores, eight-track tapes, and Studebakers, may be a thing of the past. I don't like it, but I consider it. So because the WaPo and NYT are so riddled with corrupt, profit-grabbing ideologies, as Robert so eloquently lays out, I am leaning toward thinking it's better if they just go out of business rather than adding to the flesh-eating virus that is attacking our democracy. May the excellent journalists that do still work there find another forum for their talents that helps them pay the rent. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is still good, I hear. We should turn our attention to figuring out what a paying vehicle would look like, that could employ and support great journalists while being protected from the corruption Robert describes. And then pool our resources and talents to create that alternative vehicle. I dunno what it would look like at the moment...
Maybe a pooled substack type thing, only formatted more as a web page - a problem with substack is that you either subscribe to one as a paid supporter for something close to the cost of a newspaper which has many dozens of voices, or you subscribe to as many as five or six for five or six the times of a (for example) WaPo subscription... and the end result is a constriction of sources similar to the output a FOX viewer is getting except in voice versus view, or as well as view. The difference is you initially pick, but FOX viewers choose channels too.
The substack problem is income, of course. Writers would have to accept 1/34th of the income if there were 34 articles per massive substack newsletter. It would be nice if substack allowed smaller donations to each of many writers since one is unlikely to be able to afford or read twelve or more substacks a day, so the default alternative of "free" is more tempting.
This is vastly different than an editorial shakeup Stephen. The new guys are Murdoch people. The Washington Post has been increasingly anti-Biden. There is real concern about the direction of this publication.
The "good journalists" are increasingly being outnumbered by the likes of Theissen.
I don’t think the WaPo is anti Biden. I don’t agree with some of the headlines but remember about 50% of the country are not Biden fans and maybe that is what they are projecting. I am with you on the former Murdoch people but it looks like they are running into trouble.
I did not renew. I was a Post subscriber for many years. I opposed jerks like Robert Novak and the current op ed Trump a-holes but supported it as a major source of info. The Murdoch influence is the final straw.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement, Alexandra and others. While it may feel good to rebel against the media in such a way, it's kinda like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We ignore the disingenuity of the news media at our peril. We need to find ways to make the truth more interesting. Felonious Trump & The MAGAlomaniacs have mastered the opposite, and have made the "free" in "free press" mean "at no cost." In politics, offense is a lot more interesting than defense. While Felonious Trump & The MAGAlomaniacs are clearly offensive, we need to strengthen our own offense and take advantage of that same "free" press, and we need to find ways to increase the cost of lies, so they are no longer free.
Lies, like the destruction they represent, are much easier to purvey than truths, especially when the latter are offered in defense. Demolition is always much easier than rebuilding.
A number of people have responded to my comment about Robert's Newsletter addressing WaPo and his decision to keep his subscription. While I question and disagree with Robert's decision, in no way was that meant as disrespect (or "berating" as one reader put it). I am a faithful and admiring reader of Today's Edition and have huge respect for Robert.
For the last couple of years, pretty much weekly I have written letters to the Editor (as well as specific columnists) of the Times and WaPo about their increasingly outrageous political coverage of Biden/Dems. A couple months ago I posted on this newsletter a letter I wrote to the Times-- with the help of others in my local Indivisible group -- decrying their prejudicial coverage of Biden. Over 40 signed the letter and many (not all) unsubscribed -- as I did -- at that time. I respect their choice even if I disagree.
I believe we desperately need responsible journalism. The take over of most of our main stream media by hugely wealthy, anti-democratic owners is an enormous threat to our country. Two of my immediate family members are journalists. Journalism is undergoing great change. The debate we're having here in the comment section is healthy and needs to continue. We need to support and find ways for good journalists to do well-paid, in depth reporting and have it reach more people. But we have a choice to not be complicit in supporting bad journalism.
I'm not promulgating only journalism I agree with. Just as I believe we desperately need a responsible, sane Republican party, it's of the utmost importance that different points of view are fully aired and reported.
What I do believe is that when the ownership, choices in hiring and editorial decisions are made by those whose stance is basically anti-democratic, the choice I believe we have to make is not to support them with our subscriptions and readership. In my view, the Times and WaPo are on a continuum now with Fox and X/Twitter. I hope that if leadership and ownership remains as it is, that they fail -- and that new forms of journalism (like Substack) thrive and/or we find ways to support and encourage a "NYTimes" and "WaPo" with different ownership and all that goes with it.
I respect and agree with your thinking, Alexandra. I was struck by what you said: "The take over of most of our main stream media by hugely wealthy, anti-democratic owners..." It made me wonder: have any of us actually listed the number of billionaires behind Trump? Calculated how many there are? Do we think he has 100 billionaires behind him, or what (it's crazy to me that suddenly there are so many billionaires, they're like a dime a dozen now)? The only ones I can think of immediately are Harlan Crow and Charles Koch. Maybe shining the spotlight on this secret dark spot would help us combat their plans, unrolling in front of us right now. Could ProPublica or Public Citizen do an expose on them?
Write them and ask. Ask that they consider an article showing how we too have our oligarchs, and cover the numbers behind the political support. I've seen information but it has been somewhat fragmented. Besides some things bear repeating.
These are the real enemy. They, along with Putin, prop up the demented puppet Trump. He's just the cardboard figurehead. Their real agenda, I'm guessing, is to institute the oligarchy, fronted by a Trump dictatorship. They get power, control, and the ability to do as they please once the abolish democracy and the rule of law.
I cancelled my subscription after Susan Buzbee was terminated and I learned that Will Lewis is a a former Murdoch propagandist and tried to bury the story about his past conduct. Does Jeff Bezos truly believe in the 4th pillar of Democracy or has he succumb to the oligarchical fascists that support Trump and the overthrow our democratically government.
I subscribe, too, and currently have no plans to stop. As a friend put it: "you have to keep your finger on the pulse of the enemy". WaPo may not be a flat-out enemy but the finger still needs to be there.
Alexandra, I respect your opinion but please remember that there are levels of support and reasons to continue minimal support for a digital only subscription. I have opted for the latter because it allows me to voice concerns to WaPo reporters/staff AND engage with other readers through online comments etc. It seems more productive than terminating all communication with staff and readers.
Currently I still have a WaPo subscription though I got rid of my NYT one. I also support The Guardian, which is becoming my most reliable source of USA news, but still. Very unhappy with this turn of events, but not surprised. The USA should never have let their media be so owned by Oligarchs, and need to have a public source that is trusted. In Germany everyone needs to pay a fee which goes towards public news on television and radio. It is also more trusted by a wider political spectrum than any station in the US as this American expat shares. https://youtu.be/KgCiEkoRI9w?si=7Qm8CeUV1olglX56
Sorry I don’t believe for a minute they are reporting lies. What they are doing is providing a perspective of the situation. It might not be our perspective but it is a honest perspective. A big issue is many articles headline does not match the content of the body of work and people don’t read the article. Headline surfing is something many people do. The bottom line MAGA has successfully corrupted the news organizations of this country and created doubt about the validity of all news.
You make a good point and one I agree with -- the headlines are a big issue. And a really important one. They are often misleading and sometimes outright dishonest. So, how does that make the publications - whether it's NYT or WaPo - a source of "honest perspective"? It doesn't. Many people surf much of the news IF they read news at all. At least they're interested. But many -- maybe most -- who try to keep up have full time jobs (or more than one), kids and other responsibilities to attend to. They may read a few articles in depth but end up surfing the rest because they lack the time. So, headlines are extremely important. To leave a false or misleading impression with headlines is bad, and often dishonest, journalism. Headlines leave lasting and important impressions -- even subliminally. NYT and WaPo could do a better job, but they don't.
Headlines are crucial! As you say, they may be the only thing a busy citizen reads. And the headlines this year have been lousy--bad and misrepresentative. Even if the story is balanced, an imbalanced headline does all the damage it's necessary to do, to get the MAGA point of view across. That's why I've been wondering about the motivations of these so-called journalists. The Hill is a case in point, with headlines like Better Economy a Problem for Biden (I just made that up, but they do similar stuff).
It’s my understanding that the article headlines are not created by the journalists who actually wrote the article. Can anyone confirm or clarify that? How do WaPo and NYT develop their headlines? Who does this important task?
I agree but we sometimes do not give enough credit to readers who because of the current media environment don’t trust a single source as a basis of truth.
Amidst all of the issues with the Washington Post, some GOOD news about the Times bears noting. In yesterday’s Sunday edition, two articles appeared ABOVE THE FOLD, one titled “The resistance to a new Trump administration has already started,” and another, “If Trump wins,” which did not mince words about what Project 2025 would bring. In the first article, the reporting was couched in the certainty that Trump would not win, but that we needed to be prepared. While the headlines can be confusing, the text was quite clear. And BTW, I subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, for which the editorial page has done a great job explaining the perils of a Trump administration.
Also subscribe to corporate-owned Orlando Sentinel and grateful Ed page has been doing the same about the perils of Trump and DeSantis.My local Gannett paper…sigh.
I like to support ProPublica.They’re a non-profit powered mostly by donations….and they’re a major thorn in Justice Alito and Thomas’s side. Alito even ranted about them to the “conservative” at the Supreme Court Historical Society event.
Judicial misconduct “starts” at the local level”.⬇️
“Last fall, out of public view, the North Carolina Supreme Court squashed disciplinary action against two Republican judges who had admitted that they had violated the state’s judicial code of conduct, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the decisions.”
Thanks for bringing up Propublica. I am a supporter also, and frequently direct people to them. Propublica's model includes collaboration with other news organizations to cover things that otherwise are overlooked, and bring them to wider audiences. Other news organizations routinely use Propublica's work to springboard their own investigations. Highly recommend following them, and donate whatever you can to help support the work they do. Even a few dollars a month makes a difference.
I appreciate the link to the NYT. That's pretty stunning. I hope it influences some other news outlets to step up. I have never subscribed to NYT, but have read it from time to time and appreciated many of the articles (though not the editorial side). If they are breaking out of the silo they have been in, it might go back on my "someday" list.
If you are concerned about the black vote this November, then you owe it to yourself to hear this interview with Senator Raphael Warnock.
"I would be worried if we didn't have a good story to tell about the work that we've done. " " Black wealth is up 60% since before the pandemic. We've seen a 30 year high in the creation of black businesses. Black unemployment is at a historic low. "
"If black voters turn out, Donald Trump loses, period. "
We have a great country. Scrap reading details in NYT, WPO, Waall Street Journal. Reprint and run Ken Burns graduation speech everyday…..people are sick and tired of all the free press trump is given due to his certifiable mental issues. I for one watched the 80th Anniversary of D Day and admire and support our military. They are not Loosers and suckers! Our economy is stable, America cannot save the world but we are still smart, believe in our constitution, support laws . Can we be better of course! Being given nothing but trump news validating his nasty cruel self….we all already know this. MSNBC OVER CARRIES daily awarding more free press, fear mongering etc. STOP the negative and let’s get Steve Hartman style when possible. We know the damage of lies, twisted out of context reporting and FOX-got nailed financially. Remind folks why and the follow on lawsuits staring down the barrel at FOX again.
Biden has maintained his decorum, his policies for all Americans. If the magas don’t have the support of free press, we can celebrate what is good in America. The crazies love to hate and that can be shut off too.
Robert, I wish you would submit this excellent column as a letter to the editor of the Washington Post.
If they give you due respect, signaling a willingness to turn back toward journalistic integrity, I would be willing to re-up my subscription.
I would like to support a flagship newspaper if it were actually reporting news in hard facts and honest figures. Americans need to be on the same page factually. That would be a big step toward restoring common ground and saving our democracy.
I thank you for your courage and commitment, and I admire your intelligence, your expertise, and your excellent writing skills. I have learned so much, and i have been so heartened by your optimistic honesty.
A great book, “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” by Albert O, Hirschman addresses the dilemmas created when institutions, firms, or governments are in the process of failing. Does one leave them, attempt to change them, or stick with them? Robert has some hope for the Post and, effectively, has written an open letter to Bezos, so Robert is in the Voice camp, striving to influence positive change. Several of the commenters have chosen Exit and identified alternatives, such as Substack subscriptions.
Having lived in Washington during Watergate, all that time reading and loving the Post, my own response is slowed by Loyalty to its history, and to its work during the Trump administration, but I am tilting toward Exit, because I doubt whether my voice or any other will stop the paper from turning out the lights it claims to shine on behalf of democracy.
Great, relevant cite. The concept of loyalty seems more relevant to people who are part of organizations rather than those of us who consume what the organization produces. They have personal relationships within the organization and the cost of leaving can be genuinely high. And, their voice, when they use it, can have more impact. The cost to the consumer to exit is much less and the power of our voice is also less. So, the thing that keeps us there may be more like habit or sentiment.
Good insight, Barbara. I'd add this observation: as a consumer of news (and writer of analysis), my interest involves having access to accurate and relevant information about the things and issues that may affect my life and my community in the large sense. That matters to me, and when I begin to feel that a news organization I've been relying on has gone off-track, I feel my trust has been betrayed. If it continues, I need to change where I get my news.
But I think back to the era when newspapers, journals, and magazines were just becoming common, and often there were several news sources in any given community. That story is also one of competing interests and eventual mergers and frequent bankruptcies. But it worked to build interest in the news and contributed to political literacy.
In some ways that's where we are now: a shift in how we get and perceive news. In my lifetime, the very nature of how news is delivered (and even how news is defined) has changed radically. I no longer have to rely on that one big newspaper or one big network. The emergence of other resources has made it easier to find voices that speak to the issues in meaningful ways. It does take some trial and error, and some willingness to explore. And to pay attention to other views, something that really did not much happen when there was just one voice. That one big voice drowned out the many other voices that we need. There are many voices now, which makes our job as readers more challenging in some ways, but opens up the possibility of discovery.
Substack is one place to find those voices, but there are others. And there is the astonishing emerging resurgence of reliable local news outlets, at least in some places. There is one where I live that is excellent: a community owned newspaper with an editor who is willing to challenge conventional ways of thinking and doing that aren't serving us well any more, and includes voices from the community with various perspectives. I am one of the "owners" through my subscription, but there are also two other, more regional outlets and a remarkable public news radio/tv with strong coverage.
So, yeah, I think we do tend to stick with what's familiar. But more and more of us are reaching beyond that, and discovering that while the familiar may still meet some needs, there are other resources that meet other needs or provide other ways of seeing the familiar.
All good points Annie! I do see a blossoming of creativity and particularly welcome are the small on-line sources covering important local and regional news events that you won't hear about from the Sinclair-owned TV stations and their kin. We do still have the problem of how the country can continue to function democratically when we don't perceive reality the same way.
Interesting and persuasive. I wonder how "loyalty," as HIrschmann used it, is different from habit or sentiment. Brand loyalty was a big thing in the old days (that is, when I was young). GM vs. Ford was one example. Nowadays "loyalty" to someone who couldn't give a rat's ass about you permeates sports fandom (I write as someone living in Greater Boston and sharing the subway with, currently, Celtics fans wearing green jerseys emblazoned with the names of people they have never met.)
Futher research over at the WaPo led me to discover that, in addition to the editorial Robert properly castigates, the paper published another opinion piece titled: "The Hunter Biden and Trump Trials Were A Litmus Test: Only The Bidens Passed.'
Memo To Self: Another reminder that the world is rarely ever "black and white."
The Litmus Test article was well written and accurate and clearly showed the comparison of the two candidates. You need to read the article not the headlines.
Many of the Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 are somewhere between worry and terror that he might lose the presidency to Donald Trump in November. I am reasonably confident Joe Biden will win in November.
Here are my reasons for optimism:
While polls represent the opinion of a small number of voters at a fixed point in time, elections are a full expression of voters’ decision between candidates. In 2020, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by 81 million to 74 million votes. Since then, pollsters, especially Nate Cohn’s NYTimes Siena poll, has created an intentionally misleading outlook for Biden in 2024.
Biden’s 2020 victory resulted from a choice by the majority of Americans to bring back responsible government, a forward-looking American agenda and reject Trump’s erratic, mean spirited, self-serving politics. The Trump of 2024 represents a more dangerous threat than he did in 2020. In addition to his constant lies, Trump is a rapist, a convicted felon, a financial fraudster, a threat to America’s national security, an election cheat and perhaps senile. So why would any of the 81 million Biden voters abandon him this November to vote for Trump or not vote? THEY WON’T. More likely, as the benefits of his policies become more widely recognized, Biden will pick up rather than lose voters to Trump.
However, ignoring the reality of Biden’s fundamental popularity, analysts and journalists daily warn Democrats that we should be very worried about losing for two reasons. First, Biden’s low popularity in the polls. Second, the president has old guy vibes and looks frail on TV.
Happily, Biden’s poll numbers have started rising in June. However, it’s hard to overstate the damage done to Biden’s campaign and the confidence of Democrats by the anti-Biden, gaslighting, New York Times/Sienna poll. Starting in 2023, the Times consistent election “story line” described Biden’s presidency as failing with low approval ratings. The Times poll results are widely quoted as national election “facts” by journalists across all media empowering “shock” news articles about Biden’s low prospects in 2024. The monthly drumbeat of negative Biden news has created an atmosphere of fear, dread and panic among Democrats, aided Trump’s dominance over the GOP and spread joy across the MAGA world.
How does the NYTimes poll mislead the public? By overcounting Trump-biased, MAGA participant groups in rural America. Its poll data is NOT a balanced picture of the political reality in America today but rather a snapshot of MAGA America. The Times polls include a significantly greater % of rural voters than can be justified by the demographics of America’s voting population. 22% of Americans live in rural counties. However, the Times poll has typically included 35% or more rural respondents, an overweighting of 59% in Trump America where he won in 2020 with 60% to 38% of the vote. To realistically interpret the Times polling data, Liberals should assume its polls and the journalists who quote it, are describing MAGA America, not the America where the majority of Biden’s 81 million voters live. It seems of late even Nate Cohn is waking up to his statistical aberration.
On a positive note, the Times poll results in May show Biden gaining ground. He’s leading in in Wisconsin and very close in 4 out of 5 others; VERY encouraging results for Joe Biden in a MAGA biased poll. If the Times adjusted its poll to 22% rural respondents, Biden would be ahead in 5 out of 6 swing states!
An interesting fact from the Times poll that Nate Cohn and the journalists NEVER report is that 70%-80% of all voters in swing states are “satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their situation in America today. Journalist repeatedly report that the majority are very dissatisfied with Biden because of inflation. After all, who likes inflation? But, perhaps, most voters in the Times poll think the effect of inflation is not ruining their life and might not be a major factor in November.
Biden’s age as a competitive disadvantage compared to Trump defies reality as both candidates are much older than the traditional age for a presidential candidate. In November, voters will face a binary decision based on the current behavior and mental capacity of either candidate. One candidate is executing the responsibilities of the presidency every day. He is successfully fighting wars in the Ukraine, in Israel, against MAGA extremism and to reduce inflation. That candidate is executing policies to reshore critical tech industries and reduce the effects of global warming. At the same time, he’s able to run an aggressive presidential campaign and lead powerful alliances in Asia and Europe to support democracy for the long term.
The other candidate grows more horrifyingly unattractive every day. That candidate seems to be running on an unrecognizable vision of American decline in a dystopian Zombie movie, entertaining to some of his MAGA base but far from the outlook of most Americans. How many of us are worried about electrocution vs. shark attacks?
If it wasn’t obvious at the beginning of 2020, it is now undeniable; Joe Biden is a true American political genius. We should be joyfully happy that Biden is willing to give the country another 4 years. We all need to work our tales off to get him elected.
Has anybody else noticed that Trump's "base" no longer exists in the way it did 4 years ago and 4 years before that? Not only do they not show up, they have grown quieter. The media have to go out looking for them, and often end up talking only to the few willing to be interviewed. I have never thought of these people as being "deplorable" and every time I hear that word, I cringe. At best, they are being misled, and at worst, their very real concerns are being distorted by suit-wearing opportunists using them. There's a good feeling about sharing something with other people who feel left out and left behind. Somebody is making a lot of money selling red hats and stuff to create a sense of community.
Yup, there are still the extreme right wingers, most of whom are simply angry people who habitually make a lot of noise. But they are not the "base" that the media loves to refer to.
I think that a good many of them are quiet because they are recognizing that things are different than they'd been led to believe, or are embarrassed, or simply because they are tired of it all. Or they are thinking, and feeling their way to another way of seeing things. Trump is showing that he is not who he said he was. They may show up, but don't stay. They may vote but maybe not for Trump. We don't know. But they are not the monolith the media and the wanna-be pollsters and pundits make them out to be. They are Americans and the sooner we recognize and accept that, the more likely it is that they will recognize that we are not their enemies. But first we have to stop acting as if they are our enemies.
I agree. "MAGA Nation" is a horror story fantasy the media loves because of its shock value. I also think it's dissipating. I hope the NYTimes will get over their MAGA fascination soon.
If the over-educated, under-intelligent, otherwise-unemployable trust fund babies at the WaPo and the DC Press Corpse (lookin' at you, Tara "I go to Washington parties and they'll never invite you" Parlmieri, the worst thing at Puck News and a "functional" political illiterate) think they'll get to "rage at Trump" after the election, if he wins, they have another think coming. Trump talks frequently about using his DOJ (and it will be his) to go after them and "get them." The looks on their faces will be so confused and sad when they're looking out from inside the barbed wire at the "security camp" in West Texas they'll be going to. And I won't feel bad for one of them.
The Washington Post doesn't deserve to survive, and anyone expecting Jeff Bezos to do a "good thing" probably still believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
It occurred to me that, if trump were to win, NO media outlets would be allowed to rage at him or about him, especially not the Washington Post. Trump is not a Jeff Bezos fan and would shut it down in a nanosecond.
Spot on, Jenn. If they really think that “Root against Biden during the campaign and then rage against Trump if he wins” is a profit-maximizing strategy they will be in for a rude awakening. Calling out a Führer in an autocracy comes at a heavy prize. Administrations from the federal level down to the state and local level will be breathing down your neck, from the IRS to fire marshalls to all kind of regulating authorities. And then of course there is the convicted felon's weapon of choice: lawyers. And he even doesn't have to pay himself as he will use a weaponized DOJ and the AGs in red states.
A good example for this and a harbinger of what might come is the felon's so far successful attempt to suppress the distribution of the film "The Apprentice."
Too right. I'm pretty sure Trump would shut down the (ha-ha) free press as one of the first achievements of his dictatorship. We must re-elect Pres. Biden!
And the Great Pumpkin. I think it's at least possible that the strategy is to support the Convicted Felon and failed insurrectionist long enough to maximize interest during the campaign and then discover new information that explains and justifies an endorsement of the President for re-election.
Well, Robert, once again you hit it out of the park. I have been at a loss to understand the actions of the NYT and WaPo. My best guess was trying to "obey in advance," as Timothy Snyder warns us not to do in the face of rising fascism. But that never made complete sense, because one thing we know about Trump is that he is out for revenge on every person and every institution that has "wronged" him, and the only two results that would be satisfactory would be their demise or their conversion to MAGA mouthpieces. Your formulation that they are betting on "rooting against Biden in the campaign and raging against Trump if he wins" seems like the best explanation I have heard.
As Rick Wilson famously said, "Everything Trump touches dies," and that appears to include our legacy media. It's very discouraging and worrying, but perhaps we are in transition to something different and better. I have canceled both, and support independent organizations like States Newsroom, The Bulwark and The Atlantic and my local paper (which does rely on WaPo and NYT for some of their content, so it's complicated).
One of the confounding things I encounter, is people who understand the threat of the extreme right wing that is embodied by the Trump candidacy, who continue to engage in the same behavior that got us to Trump 2016. I deal with them every day in my activities in Florida.
Today's Edition is about media mistakes. Why in the world would some in the NY Times, Washington Post, the Sunday interview shows, mainstream media, continue to engage in the same type of journalism that normalizes Trumpian racism, autocratic policy and behavior, including threats and actions designed to destroy the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate?
I was listening to the ABC interview of Sen. Scott who was blathering on about the bump stock decision, not answering the question, and the interviewer allowing him to blather on. I stopped listening to the program altogether.
We need the media. We need the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment. We need to consume media. Our responsibility is to applaud those who have learned from 2016 and call out those who continue the mistakes. Rather than refusing to consume the media, continue to call it out. Thank you for doing just that.
By the way, I have never heard those on Morning Joe apologize for their part in 2016, giving Trump gobs of airtime, never confronting him on his shady business deals, racism, promises of autocracy, continually highlighting Hillary Clinton's "untrustworthiness". But guess what? This time, they are calling out Trump completely, and they are making fun of the NY Times, Wash Post and other media focus on Biden's age or the polls. They get it, they stopped, and I am very glad.
Now in my backyard: Why in the world do some very smart, sincere activists continue to engage in the same divisive and competitive behavior, that got Florida into the mess we are now in? Competition is pretty standard and is a part of human nature. however, the level of it in the past, in Florida, rendered Democrats ineffective, at best.
But now, Democrats are coming back.
Because of changes at the state party level in early 2023 with a new party chairwoman, the Florida Democratic Party has had several electoral victories and successful campaign activities. One most recent campaign success includes the historic candidate recruitment achievement that now has ensured that no Republican will run unopposed in every state legislative race, both houses, and every congressional race. 100%. We did it.
The other success is that the Biden/Harris campaign is devoting resources and setting up headquarters in Florida, saying that they believe Florida is now in play, which is true. As Biden would say "not a joke". And voters will be able to vote to restore abortion rights in the November general election.
Now comes the hard part: The state party, and various Democratic organizations and individual activists, all are responsible for these successes. All of us should give one another credit and accolades, not devolve into competition regarding who did the most. If we cannot work together effectively, without all the competition, I fear all we have gained will be lost.
We have a lot of work to do to support all those candidates we recruited and got qualified. We cannot do it if we won't work with each other.
Equally important, liberal and progressive groups MUST recognize that the Florida Democratic Party is back, gaining in effectiveness, energizing Democrats to get to the polls in the August primary and the November general election. Whatever past grievances you have, get over it. The Democratic Party in Florida is all of us, the over 4 million registered Democrats, not the person who made you mad in 2020 or 2018, or 2000.
Continuing to put down the state and local parties will harm our ability to get Democrats out to vote. Cut it out.
We all need to work together now to end the one-party autocratic rule in Florida, and stop it from happening in the U.S. There is no excuse for continuing behavior that got us Trump 2016.
My sister lives in Florida. In a district that was blue and now is Red. She is super angry. Now Florida is in play because of the Abortion bans. I hope Florida women bring it home for the Democrats. I have a strong feeling they will. Trump, DeSantis, Rubio and Scott should be enough to bring all women out to vote......They poked the bear and the bear is us....
Please let your sister know that it is not just reproductive rights that will bring Dems out, although that will be a major incentive. It is also the hard work on the part of our new Chair, Nikki Fried, to get the state and local parties to work with one another again, instead of against one another.
As a result, her vibrant campaign strategies and activities allowed us to flip a legislative seat in Orlando, take the Jacksonville Mayor position away from Republicans, help get the abortion rights initiative on the ballot in November, and recruit Dems in every single state legislative and congressional race in Florida. no republicans unopposed. And I believe it is her leadership and those accomplishments that have caused the Biden/Harris campaign to set up shop in Florida.
Democrats have issues and candidates to vote for in Florida, including reproductive freedom.
But several of our large counties still see Democrats battling for control of their county organizations, and as a result, have been AWOL while the rest of us are working to support our democratic candidates and issues. Nikki and her team are working to straighten out the dynamics in those counties. Unfortunately, it will take more than a year to overcome years of that culture. But we have no choice but to get it done.
Thank you for your posting on the progress and the complexity of Democratic Party politics in Florida. You encourage us not to write off a state that is dominated by the Republican MAGA crowd. Very instructive and inspirational. You write: "We all need to work together now to end the one-party autocratic rule in Florida, and stop it from happening in the U.S. There is no excuse for continuing behavior that got us Trump 2016." AMEN! If Trump loses Florida, if Debbie Mucarsel-Powell beats Rick Scott, and down ballot Democrats win a few surprises, Florida wins and the country wins. Thanks for the encouraging insight. Rick Scott won his Senate by just over 10,000 votes in 2018. That's in a voting age population that was over 17,000,000 in 2020. That's less than 6/10,000ths of the voting age population.
Register folks, get out the votes of women and those men who happen to have mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, nieces, friends who are female, bosses who are female, direct reports who are femaile, students and/or colleagues who are nonbinary, transgender, or lesbian. That should add to a sizable constituency to oust the Republicans. We must work together. One job, one task: win seats for Democrats to save the state and the country.
And thank you, Judy, for so clearly laying out what is going on in Florida. I knew people were working to turn things around, but your passion and dedication makes me believe it can happen. And will happen.
Still an uphill battle in FL but your comments reflect what I am reading in other publications, that the Dems have not given up! And no office will go unopposed?? That’s a big deal
Robert, as I understand it Carol Leonnig, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist, confronted this new editor after the firing of Sallie Buzbee. She was none too happy. I think they all leave Jennifer Rubin alone since she has a large following and the fact that she was (is?) a lawyer. Wonder what the headline at NYT and WAPO will be after Biden wins!
Everyone is getting hung up on this story about the WaPo and coming to conclusions not warranted. No one has mentioned the headline and stories pro Biden.
I cancelled my Post subscription last year when they ran the opinion piece on the inevitability of a Trump Presidency. Irresponsible then; irresponsible now. Get most of my news from The Guardian.
An opinion is an opinion: it belongs to the author of the piece alone, not the paper. The Post has long had a policy of including a range of opinions by authors of different persuasions. It doesn't mean that the Post agrees with any of them: that's for us to decide. Personally, I want to know what the people in the right lane and the screwball lane are thinking. It is useful information. The Post could do a better job of separating them out online from actual reportage, which is not the same thing. They DO, however, clearly differentiate their own editorials, which are bylined by the Post Editorial Board.
I also have some issues with WaPo, especially misleading headlines on what are otherwise thoughtful articles. I often write to the Post (not in the comments of specific articles) about my concerns about how something is covered. So far, I have not unsubscribed. I do also read the Guardian, and get a different perspective, one that often feels more on mark. But not always. Reading both gives me a way to look at things from different angles. The Guardian does do a better job of identifying when a piece is opinion, not reporting.
I will stay with the WaPo as long as it provides accurate information about what is affecting things that matter to me. That includes some opinion pieces. I ignore the ones by authors that I find uninformed, uninformative, off-base, insulting, or just plain stupid. The piece you mentioned (about the so-called inevitability of a Trump presidency) fell squarely into the last category. I just ignored it. There are other things in the Post still worth reading, including the opinion pieces by Jennifer Rubin and several others, and some fine reportage, and sometimes even a recipe or a little humor. It is, after all, a newspaper.
I understand the difference among news stories, editorial stances, and opinion pieces. I still think it was irresponsible of WP to offer a platform to someone declaring that Trump's reelection was inevitable. I wrestled with my decision, finally decided I didn't want to support a business providing that platform. Used my WP$ for The Guardian.
I too am a long time Washington Post subscriber and plan to remain one due to my respect for many of their journalists. However, that does not restrict me criticisms of them when they get it wrong. My recent letters to the editor sent to them feature those criticisms on their current stumbles. I feel my status Asa long time subscriber and supporter of the WaPo should lend some weight to the criticisms. We will see if that is the case.
Supporting quality journalism and criticizing irresponsible journalism are both civic responsibilities. Thank you for doing both.
That WaPo article on the two Limey Turds may just be the beginning of the revolt that will see them flushed. Products of the worst media baron in history: Rupert Murdoch.
It's really too bad the Arab who found the young Australian Flying Corps pilot who crashed his airplane in the Tigris-Euphrates marshes in World War I hadn't been a little later with his discovery. Then the young flyer wouldn't have survived, been put on a hospital ship back to Australia, fallen in love with his nurse who he married, and then became parents of their son, Rupert.
And also reminders that little decisions and actions can have big ramifications. Today's Edition shows that every day. Someone recommends an article that leads someone else to give $10 to a political campaign three states away. Or a comment sparks someone to think differently, be more hopeful, inspire someone else to write postcards or buy a t-shirt in support of Biden-Harris and wear it to the grocery store....and on and on.
We are all butterflies flapping our wings in Kansas and causing rain to fall in Central Park days later. (I know this last sentence is a gross simplification of chaos theory, but it is a powerful metaphor for action helping us fight off questions in our own minds and the hearts of others, e.g. "My vote won't matter" or "It won't make any difference if we point out Trump's madness because his followers are all slavishly devoted". As Timothy Snyder reminds us: we must not surrender to the tyrant prematurely.) Little things count. In 2022 Democrat Kris Mayes defeated Republican Abraham Hamadeh by 280 votes to become the Arizona Attorney General. As a result Rudy Giuliani and others were indicted for election fraud. Because of that, lets say, there's x minutes of more coverage about Republican election fraud and voter oppression, which helps lead 10 people in each of swing states to vote for Biden and 10 more to be so disgusted with Trump that they don't vote for Trump even though they voted for him in 2020, and they persuade by their example 10 more Republicans to give up on the corruption in the Trump and lies in Trump's campaign. And this with a lot of other actions leads to a Biden-Harris reelection.
It's tiring flapping those ol' butterfly wings and friends will ask us, maybe in gentler words, "Why are you wasting your time?: And all over America, the cynical and the uncaring will laugh at us and chant the whiny cry of the lazy and thoughtless who think they are clever and sophisticated but are really sounding the death of democracy, "Who cares? Why bother? What difference does it make?"
Will Lewis spreads Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Global Cancer on Democracy” to the Washington Post. Follow the infection with this interactive map.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/06/16/will-lewis-spreads-rupert-murdochs-global-cancer-on-democracy-to-the-washington-post/
I honestly can’t understand how you can write a whole column about the outrageousness of WaPo political reporting - and then conclude you’ll continue to subscribe and support them. The Post and the Times are actively threatening our Democracy, so I respectfully disagree with your concluding thoughts. Sure there are good reporters and columnists. I wish (speaking of wish lists) that they had the means and will to resign en masse. Become substack writers! Or find backers for a new paper. I’ve unsubscribed from both. Hope others will do that too.
If the Post goes away, Washington's leading newspaper will be The Washington Times. That would not be good. The Washington Post is home to Jennifer Rubin, Eugene Robinson, EJ Dionne, etc.
I agree, Robert. However, I am troubled by the prospect of needing to get *basic, factual* news via opinion pieces.
I subscribe to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Why? Because I want these entities to survive and live to see a better day of journalism. I also take the time to post comments extensively in the Washington Post and New York Times. Why bother? Because it is an opportunity to post the truth of things. I very frequently quote Rosenberg's statistics, Hubbell's legal takes on things and Richardson's summaries. And I keep on doing it.
Where else do we have that kind of opportunity to post the truth to a broader audience?
Also. I respect Jennifer Rubin, Alexandra Petri and various authors in the Post who speak out. The same for the Times with Jamelle Bouie and others. I want to support these journalists.
In summary I guess my best take is we don't take our ball and walk off the field when the game isn't going our way. We can reach an awful lot of people not in our orbit by commenting in these publications. Many times, someone will thank me for a truth/fact I posted.
I am with Barbara 100%. I still subscribe to the NYT and WaPo even though I am disgusted by both. I too take the time to post truth and facts in the comments section and on social media. I feel calmed and energized by calling out lies in any forum at any time. Small acts of resistance and truth telling have changed history for people who have faced much longer odds than us.
Totally agree - and I too daily write comments in response to the opinions. I don't know whether it gets to the trash - but it is calming for me and also helps me articulate the true stories. (Dukakis was way ahead of the polls at this point - and for Clinton - it was James Comey who dealt the death blow - not the 'inaccurate' polls.
I agree
I agree too. Canceling our subscriptions is like refusing to vote because Biden isn’t perfect. If WaPo and NYT go down, what’s left?
Exactly!
Plus, someone needs to be on the front lines. Robert is our frontliner!
The Guardian
and all the people who feel superior because they canceled their subscriptions have no place criticising the paper they no longer read.
Please remind me/us of how to post comments to NYT & WaPo
Thanks
The comment I posted to the editorial board was words to the effect of "Not to worry. When President Biden wins re-election in a landslide, he will continue to be your President along with the rest of us!"
thanks, Lynell
In the New York Times:
At the top and bottom of the article you will see a conversation icon. Click on that.
In the Washington Post:
At the top of the article it says "comment." click on that.
thanks, Barbara
Anytime Laine. My habit when I post in WaPo is to stay out of the culture war stuff and not get sucked into the troll stuff. I go to post information.
When you post in the New York Times click the little box under your comment that says "Email me when my comment is published and if a journalist responds."
The Times censors submittals. WaPo is a free for all.
I finally couldn't stand the NYT any more and canceled. A recent headline in the NYT read: "Biden Campaign Ad PAINTS Trump as a Felon"!!! (caps mine) What the hell is going on?!!!
These are click bait junk articles designed to capture subscribers. I don't click on headlines like these.
But headlines like that drive people like me away! In what was is that helpful to the NYT?
I respectfully disagree with Robert’s continuing to support the WaPo but also conclude that his decision is something he has given great thought to.I finally left the NYT after many , many years with them as I could no longer abide by their whataboutism and shoddy Biden ageism.I stand by my decision and have never looked back.I know Robert’s continued backing of the WaPo is his and others choice and I respect that but I can no longer support this newspaper.
Yes. I have no issue with others continuing to support what they believe in. Everyone makes the right choice for themselves. I have been unemployed since January so I am very careful about "voting" with my hard-earned savings. I have had to unsub from some of the Substacks I loved bc of finances.
Your unsubscribing while understandable is not going to change the editorial decisions of the newspaper. The change happens when the respected writers and staff stand up and voice their displeasure.
Which appears to be happening. I have been dithering about whether or not I get enough out of the post to justify the sub cost on my low income. It goes back and forth. For now, I continue, first because I admire the staff who wrote the critique about their own management, and because many of them are fine reporters. I have learned which opinion writers are worth reading and focus on those who enlighten me. There are several columnists who are more than worthwhile and rise above the rest. So I continue to subscribe and read.
But I need to have at least one national newspaper with a finger on the pulse of America, with wide-ranging coverage. Not sure WaPo can continue to fill that role. If management follows through on the proposal of becoming DCs local newspaper on the one hand (it's original identity) with some sort of uber subscription that goes beyond that, it will have wandered into elitism- a long way from where it was when I started reading it, years ago.
Oddly, it may be the Guardian who will end up filling that gap. I've been reading it for years off and on. It has excellent writers and editors based in the states, and the capability to view things from beyond the WaDC silo. Go figure.
I forgot the Guardian! Thank you for reminding me of it. They still seem to be operating on the moral and journalistic high ground of late 20th century reporting. I also check the AP website which seems to still be reporting on the facts: https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024. Has anyone been reading the Cleveland Plain Dealer lately? Are they still decent?
The Guardian is a shining light!
It gets better. The New Republic reports that WaPo staff have formed a unit whose purpose is specifically to report on the doings (and misdoings) of the new management structure. Good for them. This definitely makes sticking with the Post worthwhile, at least for the time being.
And when the staff complaining works I’ll resubscribe.
Stephen, “editorial decisions of the newspaper” fails to capture what Today’s Edition describes: what amount to lies published as honest news.
If the public cannot trust the veracity of what should be straightforward news reports, then information darkness is descending, beginning with the very publication that announces, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.
I love my "Democracy Dies in Darkness" water bottle, but I may have to amend the phrase to read "Died"... "When WaPo went over to the Dark Side". I love it, but also always felt like at least part of their reaction was to the personal snubs of their reporters in early 45 press meets more than purely virtuously standing up for democracy. Bottom line stuff...
And when enough readers respond to the writers with objections.
I keep running into articles without comments permitted, however.
True but you can always send an email to the writers
Yes! I've done that many times and I sometimes even get a response...
You can berate Robert for continuing to subscribe to the Post, but in fact we all depend on his willingness to do that. The deep journalism we admire has rarely sustained our great media outlets financially. In the old days it was classified ads and sports that paid journalism's bills. It's no coincidence that Craig Newmark (of Craig's List) has made journalism one of his philanthropic priorities. Journalism needs the help! It's always dangerous for an organization when people aren't willing to pay what it actually costs to do the work they value.
Point! I expect a significant chunk of the cost behind "it takes money to provide the journalism you all depend upon" I hear at the end of many substacks and newsletters is the cost of subscribing to a wide variety of sources.
Another way of looking at it for those who choose not to subscribe is Mr. Hubbell subscribes so you don't have to (which deprives WaPo of multiple subscriptions) and those who continue to do so should definitely write comments, letters to the writers, and to the editorial staff. All of those serve different positive functions.
I agree with "Mr. Hubbell subscribes so you don't have to." I'm fine with getting the distilled excerpts that Robert may choose to highlight for us.
I know what you mean - but I totally support Robert's continuing subscription. For me, it helps neutralize some of the toxic, destructive reporting. It's important to know what they are writing (of course I refuse to watch FOX) and for Robert to provide the information that makes clear the distortion. I KNOW it's terrible reporting, but Robert diligently digs deep and provides us the the back stories
This post is spot-on.
I'm in agreement with you on this too. While I'm sure there are many good journalists there, they will have to ask themselves as their management is changing to a sensationalistic tabloid mindset whether they can continue to work there in good conscience. I suspect quite a few of them are already looking elsewhere for employment. The number one reason people leave a job is because of their manager. (Per a LinkedIn survey)
I appreciate your thinking on this, Victoria and JustRaven. I work in communications, and things in that world are changing fast. The ways we grew up with are no longer working. Newspapers may, sad and depressing as it seems to me, be a thing of the past. Everything is fragmented now, everyone in their own bubble of news, music, art, hobbies (fetishes?). You can find a group with members across the world who share your ideas, your likes, your interests, and stay in that echo-chamber forever, never having to take in any input, any divergent ideas, from anywhere outside your bubble. I think that's what's happening with the MAGA supporters. They literally are bombarded, through their own choice, by their own echo-chamber screaming about the corrupt Biden crime family, Biden's urging trillions of criminal Latinos to enter the U.S. every day, how Biden has caused the stock market to crash, wages and jobs to plummet, etc. etc. They don't do critical thinking. They don't even read any more, they just skim headlines and listen to sound bites and look at cartoonish graphics. That's how they get their news. Millions of Americans. My point here is, newspapers, like video rental stores, eight-track tapes, and Studebakers, may be a thing of the past. I don't like it, but I consider it. So because the WaPo and NYT are so riddled with corrupt, profit-grabbing ideologies, as Robert so eloquently lays out, I am leaning toward thinking it's better if they just go out of business rather than adding to the flesh-eating virus that is attacking our democracy. May the excellent journalists that do still work there find another forum for their talents that helps them pay the rent. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is still good, I hear. We should turn our attention to figuring out what a paying vehicle would look like, that could employ and support great journalists while being protected from the corruption Robert describes. And then pool our resources and talents to create that alternative vehicle. I dunno what it would look like at the moment...
Maybe a pooled substack type thing, only formatted more as a web page - a problem with substack is that you either subscribe to one as a paid supporter for something close to the cost of a newspaper which has many dozens of voices, or you subscribe to as many as five or six for five or six the times of a (for example) WaPo subscription... and the end result is a constriction of sources similar to the output a FOX viewer is getting except in voice versus view, or as well as view. The difference is you initially pick, but FOX viewers choose channels too.
The substack problem is income, of course. Writers would have to accept 1/34th of the income if there were 34 articles per massive substack newsletter. It would be nice if substack allowed smaller donations to each of many writers since one is unlikely to be able to afford or read twelve or more substacks a day, so the default alternative of "free" is more tempting.
There are a lot of good journalists at WaPo and there is a major editorial shake up taking place.
This is vastly different than an editorial shakeup Stephen. The new guys are Murdoch people. The Washington Post has been increasingly anti-Biden. There is real concern about the direction of this publication.
The "good journalists" are increasingly being outnumbered by the likes of Theissen.
I don’t think the WaPo is anti Biden. I don’t agree with some of the headlines but remember about 50% of the country are not Biden fans and maybe that is what they are projecting. I am with you on the former Murdoch people but it looks like they are running into trouble.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/06/16/washington-post-editor-robert-winnett/#:~:text=Incoming%20Post%20editor%20tied%20to%20self%2Ddescribed%20%E2%80%98thief%E2%80%99%20who%20claimed%20role%20in%20his%20reporting
And
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/07/nx-s1-4995105/washington-post-will-lewis-tries-to-kill-story-buzbee#:~:text=%27Washington%20Post%27%20CEO%20tried%20to%20kill%20a%20story%20about%20himself.%20It%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20the%20first%20time
Bezos is hiring FOX type folks. :((
https://www.semafor.com/article/06/16/2024/the-washington-post-looks-to-remake-its-identity
I did not renew. I was a Post subscriber for many years. I opposed jerks like Robert Novak and the current op ed Trump a-holes but supported it as a major source of info. The Murdoch influence is the final straw.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement, Alexandra and others. While it may feel good to rebel against the media in such a way, it's kinda like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We ignore the disingenuity of the news media at our peril. We need to find ways to make the truth more interesting. Felonious Trump & The MAGAlomaniacs have mastered the opposite, and have made the "free" in "free press" mean "at no cost." In politics, offense is a lot more interesting than defense. While Felonious Trump & The MAGAlomaniacs are clearly offensive, we need to strengthen our own offense and take advantage of that same "free" press, and we need to find ways to increase the cost of lies, so they are no longer free.
And truth too often requires detail and nuance to be true. Lies can be simple and blaring.
Lies, like the destruction they represent, are much easier to purvey than truths, especially when the latter are offered in defense. Demolition is always much easier than rebuilding.
I have to agree Alexandra. I have never subscribed to NYT or WaPo and manage to keep up with the news.
The Guardian.
Semaphor. https://www.semafor.com/
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us
A number of people have responded to my comment about Robert's Newsletter addressing WaPo and his decision to keep his subscription. While I question and disagree with Robert's decision, in no way was that meant as disrespect (or "berating" as one reader put it). I am a faithful and admiring reader of Today's Edition and have huge respect for Robert.
For the last couple of years, pretty much weekly I have written letters to the Editor (as well as specific columnists) of the Times and WaPo about their increasingly outrageous political coverage of Biden/Dems. A couple months ago I posted on this newsletter a letter I wrote to the Times-- with the help of others in my local Indivisible group -- decrying their prejudicial coverage of Biden. Over 40 signed the letter and many (not all) unsubscribed -- as I did -- at that time. I respect their choice even if I disagree.
I believe we desperately need responsible journalism. The take over of most of our main stream media by hugely wealthy, anti-democratic owners is an enormous threat to our country. Two of my immediate family members are journalists. Journalism is undergoing great change. The debate we're having here in the comment section is healthy and needs to continue. We need to support and find ways for good journalists to do well-paid, in depth reporting and have it reach more people. But we have a choice to not be complicit in supporting bad journalism.
I'm not promulgating only journalism I agree with. Just as I believe we desperately need a responsible, sane Republican party, it's of the utmost importance that different points of view are fully aired and reported.
What I do believe is that when the ownership, choices in hiring and editorial decisions are made by those whose stance is basically anti-democratic, the choice I believe we have to make is not to support them with our subscriptions and readership. In my view, the Times and WaPo are on a continuum now with Fox and X/Twitter. I hope that if leadership and ownership remains as it is, that they fail -- and that new forms of journalism (like Substack) thrive and/or we find ways to support and encourage a "NYTimes" and "WaPo" with different ownership and all that goes with it.
I respect and agree with your thinking, Alexandra. I was struck by what you said: "The take over of most of our main stream media by hugely wealthy, anti-democratic owners..." It made me wonder: have any of us actually listed the number of billionaires behind Trump? Calculated how many there are? Do we think he has 100 billionaires behind him, or what (it's crazy to me that suddenly there are so many billionaires, they're like a dime a dozen now)? The only ones I can think of immediately are Harlan Crow and Charles Koch. Maybe shining the spotlight on this secret dark spot would help us combat their plans, unrolling in front of us right now. Could ProPublica or Public Citizen do an expose on them?
Write them and ask. Ask that they consider an article showing how we too have our oligarchs, and cover the numbers behind the political support. I've seen information but it has been somewhat fragmented. Besides some things bear repeating.
I wrote Public Citizen and also found, on their website, a 2018 list of "Billionaires for Trump." https://www.citizen.org/news/the-super-rich-people-backing-the-trump-agenda/
These are the real enemy. They, along with Putin, prop up the demented puppet Trump. He's just the cardboard figurehead. Their real agenda, I'm guessing, is to institute the oligarchy, fronted by a Trump dictatorship. They get power, control, and the ability to do as they please once the abolish democracy and the rule of law.
All of which is probably why they really don't care if he has dementia.
Hear! Hear!
I cancelled my subscription after Susan Buzbee was terminated and I learned that Will Lewis is a a former Murdoch propagandist and tried to bury the story about his past conduct. Does Jeff Bezos truly believe in the 4th pillar of Democracy or has he succumb to the oligarchical fascists that support Trump and the overthrow our democratically government.
succumbed
I subscribe, too, and currently have no plans to stop. As a friend put it: "you have to keep your finger on the pulse of the enemy". WaPo may not be a flat-out enemy but the finger still needs to be there.
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Alexandra, I respect your opinion but please remember that there are levels of support and reasons to continue minimal support for a digital only subscription. I have opted for the latter because it allows me to voice concerns to WaPo reporters/staff AND engage with other readers through online comments etc. It seems more productive than terminating all communication with staff and readers.
Currently I still have a WaPo subscription though I got rid of my NYT one. I also support The Guardian, which is becoming my most reliable source of USA news, but still. Very unhappy with this turn of events, but not surprised. The USA should never have let their media be so owned by Oligarchs, and need to have a public source that is trusted. In Germany everyone needs to pay a fee which goes towards public news on television and radio. It is also more trusted by a wider political spectrum than any station in the US as this American expat shares. https://youtu.be/KgCiEkoRI9w?si=7Qm8CeUV1olglX56
Sorry I don’t believe for a minute they are reporting lies. What they are doing is providing a perspective of the situation. It might not be our perspective but it is a honest perspective. A big issue is many articles headline does not match the content of the body of work and people don’t read the article. Headline surfing is something many people do. The bottom line MAGA has successfully corrupted the news organizations of this country and created doubt about the validity of all news.
You make a good point and one I agree with -- the headlines are a big issue. And a really important one. They are often misleading and sometimes outright dishonest. So, how does that make the publications - whether it's NYT or WaPo - a source of "honest perspective"? It doesn't. Many people surf much of the news IF they read news at all. At least they're interested. But many -- maybe most -- who try to keep up have full time jobs (or more than one), kids and other responsibilities to attend to. They may read a few articles in depth but end up surfing the rest because they lack the time. So, headlines are extremely important. To leave a false or misleading impression with headlines is bad, and often dishonest, journalism. Headlines leave lasting and important impressions -- even subliminally. NYT and WaPo could do a better job, but they don't.
Headlines are crucial! As you say, they may be the only thing a busy citizen reads. And the headlines this year have been lousy--bad and misrepresentative. Even if the story is balanced, an imbalanced headline does all the damage it's necessary to do, to get the MAGA point of view across. That's why I've been wondering about the motivations of these so-called journalists. The Hill is a case in point, with headlines like Better Economy a Problem for Biden (I just made that up, but they do similar stuff).
It’s my understanding that the article headlines are not created by the journalists who actually wrote the article. Can anyone confirm or clarify that? How do WaPo and NYT develop their headlines? Who does this important task?
I agree but we sometimes do not give enough credit to readers who because of the current media environment don’t trust a single source as a basis of truth.
Amidst all of the issues with the Washington Post, some GOOD news about the Times bears noting. In yesterday’s Sunday edition, two articles appeared ABOVE THE FOLD, one titled “The resistance to a new Trump administration has already started,” and another, “If Trump wins,” which did not mince words about what Project 2025 would bring. In the first article, the reporting was couched in the certainty that Trump would not win, but that we needed to be prepared. While the headlines can be confusing, the text was quite clear. And BTW, I subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, for which the editorial page has done a great job explaining the perils of a Trump administration.
I still subscribe to NYT and also pleased to see these articles yesterday, especially “If He Wins” with its easily readable lists. Gifted below.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/16/us/politics/trump-policy-list-2025.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0U0.XxX0.G7CGqP1oT1a-&smid=url-share
Also subscribe to corporate-owned Orlando Sentinel and grateful Ed page has been doing the same about the perils of Trump and DeSantis.My local Gannett paper…sigh.
I like to support ProPublica.They’re a non-profit powered mostly by donations….and they’re a major thorn in Justice Alito and Thomas’s side. Alito even ranted about them to the “conservative” at the Supreme Court Historical Society event.
Judicial misconduct “starts” at the local level”.⬇️
“Last fall, out of public view, the North Carolina Supreme Court squashed disciplinary action against two Republican judges who had admitted that they had violated the state’s judicial code of conduct, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the decisions.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/north-carolina-supreme-court-republican-judges-violations
Thanks for bringing up Propublica. I am a supporter also, and frequently direct people to them. Propublica's model includes collaboration with other news organizations to cover things that otherwise are overlooked, and bring them to wider audiences. Other news organizations routinely use Propublica's work to springboard their own investigations. Highly recommend following them, and donate whatever you can to help support the work they do. Even a few dollars a month makes a difference.
I appreciate the link to the NYT. That's pretty stunning. I hope it influences some other news outlets to step up. I have never subscribed to NYT, but have read it from time to time and appreciated many of the articles (though not the editorial side). If they are breaking out of the silo they have been in, it might go back on my "someday" list.
Thanks, Kathy!
If you are concerned about the black vote this November, then you owe it to yourself to hear this interview with Senator Raphael Warnock.
"I would be worried if we didn't have a good story to tell about the work that we've done. " " Black wealth is up 60% since before the pandemic. We've seen a 30 year high in the creation of black businesses. Black unemployment is at a historic low. "
"If black voters turn out, Donald Trump loses, period. "
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/senator-raphael-warnock-on-americas-moral-and-spiritual-battle
We have a great country. Scrap reading details in NYT, WPO, Waall Street Journal. Reprint and run Ken Burns graduation speech everyday…..people are sick and tired of all the free press trump is given due to his certifiable mental issues. I for one watched the 80th Anniversary of D Day and admire and support our military. They are not Loosers and suckers! Our economy is stable, America cannot save the world but we are still smart, believe in our constitution, support laws . Can we be better of course! Being given nothing but trump news validating his nasty cruel self….we all already know this. MSNBC OVER CARRIES daily awarding more free press, fear mongering etc. STOP the negative and let’s get Steve Hartman style when possible. We know the damage of lies, twisted out of context reporting and FOX-got nailed financially. Remind folks why and the follow on lawsuits staring down the barrel at FOX again.
Biden has maintained his decorum, his policies for all Americans. If the magas don’t have the support of free press, we can celebrate what is good in America. The crazies love to hate and that can be shut off too.
Robert, I wish you would submit this excellent column as a letter to the editor of the Washington Post.
If they give you due respect, signaling a willingness to turn back toward journalistic integrity, I would be willing to re-up my subscription.
I would like to support a flagship newspaper if it were actually reporting news in hard facts and honest figures. Americans need to be on the same page factually. That would be a big step toward restoring common ground and saving our democracy.
I thank you for your courage and commitment, and I admire your intelligence, your expertise, and your excellent writing skills. I have learned so much, and i have been so heartened by your optimistic honesty.
Yes! (This is the “like” I’d give your post, and others, if only my iPhone’s “Like” button worked).
Amen.
A great book, “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” by Albert O, Hirschman addresses the dilemmas created when institutions, firms, or governments are in the process of failing. Does one leave them, attempt to change them, or stick with them? Robert has some hope for the Post and, effectively, has written an open letter to Bezos, so Robert is in the Voice camp, striving to influence positive change. Several of the commenters have chosen Exit and identified alternatives, such as Substack subscriptions.
Having lived in Washington during Watergate, all that time reading and loving the Post, my own response is slowed by Loyalty to its history, and to its work during the Trump administration, but I am tilting toward Exit, because I doubt whether my voice or any other will stop the paper from turning out the lights it claims to shine on behalf of democracy.
Great, relevant cite. The concept of loyalty seems more relevant to people who are part of organizations rather than those of us who consume what the organization produces. They have personal relationships within the organization and the cost of leaving can be genuinely high. And, their voice, when they use it, can have more impact. The cost to the consumer to exit is much less and the power of our voice is also less. So, the thing that keeps us there may be more like habit or sentiment.
Good insight, Barbara. I'd add this observation: as a consumer of news (and writer of analysis), my interest involves having access to accurate and relevant information about the things and issues that may affect my life and my community in the large sense. That matters to me, and when I begin to feel that a news organization I've been relying on has gone off-track, I feel my trust has been betrayed. If it continues, I need to change where I get my news.
But I think back to the era when newspapers, journals, and magazines were just becoming common, and often there were several news sources in any given community. That story is also one of competing interests and eventual mergers and frequent bankruptcies. But it worked to build interest in the news and contributed to political literacy.
In some ways that's where we are now: a shift in how we get and perceive news. In my lifetime, the very nature of how news is delivered (and even how news is defined) has changed radically. I no longer have to rely on that one big newspaper or one big network. The emergence of other resources has made it easier to find voices that speak to the issues in meaningful ways. It does take some trial and error, and some willingness to explore. And to pay attention to other views, something that really did not much happen when there was just one voice. That one big voice drowned out the many other voices that we need. There are many voices now, which makes our job as readers more challenging in some ways, but opens up the possibility of discovery.
Substack is one place to find those voices, but there are others. And there is the astonishing emerging resurgence of reliable local news outlets, at least in some places. There is one where I live that is excellent: a community owned newspaper with an editor who is willing to challenge conventional ways of thinking and doing that aren't serving us well any more, and includes voices from the community with various perspectives. I am one of the "owners" through my subscription, but there are also two other, more regional outlets and a remarkable public news radio/tv with strong coverage.
So, yeah, I think we do tend to stick with what's familiar. But more and more of us are reaching beyond that, and discovering that while the familiar may still meet some needs, there are other resources that meet other needs or provide other ways of seeing the familiar.
All good points Annie! I do see a blossoming of creativity and particularly welcome are the small on-line sources covering important local and regional news events that you won't hear about from the Sinclair-owned TV stations and their kin. We do still have the problem of how the country can continue to function democratically when we don't perceive reality the same way.
Interesting and persuasive. I wonder how "loyalty," as HIrschmann used it, is different from habit or sentiment. Brand loyalty was a big thing in the old days (that is, when I was young). GM vs. Ford was one example. Nowadays "loyalty" to someone who couldn't give a rat's ass about you permeates sports fandom (I write as someone living in Greater Boston and sharing the subway with, currently, Celtics fans wearing green jerseys emblazoned with the names of people they have never met.)
Futher research over at the WaPo led me to discover that, in addition to the editorial Robert properly castigates, the paper published another opinion piece titled: "The Hunter Biden and Trump Trials Were A Litmus Test: Only The Bidens Passed.'
Memo To Self: Another reminder that the world is rarely ever "black and white."
The Litmus Test article was well written and accurate and clearly showed the comparison of the two candidates. You need to read the article not the headlines.
Why I am Hopeful that Joe Biden will Win
Many of the Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 are somewhere between worry and terror that he might lose the presidency to Donald Trump in November. I am reasonably confident Joe Biden will win in November.
Here are my reasons for optimism:
While polls represent the opinion of a small number of voters at a fixed point in time, elections are a full expression of voters’ decision between candidates. In 2020, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by 81 million to 74 million votes. Since then, pollsters, especially Nate Cohn’s NYTimes Siena poll, has created an intentionally misleading outlook for Biden in 2024.
Biden’s 2020 victory resulted from a choice by the majority of Americans to bring back responsible government, a forward-looking American agenda and reject Trump’s erratic, mean spirited, self-serving politics. The Trump of 2024 represents a more dangerous threat than he did in 2020. In addition to his constant lies, Trump is a rapist, a convicted felon, a financial fraudster, a threat to America’s national security, an election cheat and perhaps senile. So why would any of the 81 million Biden voters abandon him this November to vote for Trump or not vote? THEY WON’T. More likely, as the benefits of his policies become more widely recognized, Biden will pick up rather than lose voters to Trump.
However, ignoring the reality of Biden’s fundamental popularity, analysts and journalists daily warn Democrats that we should be very worried about losing for two reasons. First, Biden’s low popularity in the polls. Second, the president has old guy vibes and looks frail on TV.
Happily, Biden’s poll numbers have started rising in June. However, it’s hard to overstate the damage done to Biden’s campaign and the confidence of Democrats by the anti-Biden, gaslighting, New York Times/Sienna poll. Starting in 2023, the Times consistent election “story line” described Biden’s presidency as failing with low approval ratings. The Times poll results are widely quoted as national election “facts” by journalists across all media empowering “shock” news articles about Biden’s low prospects in 2024. The monthly drumbeat of negative Biden news has created an atmosphere of fear, dread and panic among Democrats, aided Trump’s dominance over the GOP and spread joy across the MAGA world.
How does the NYTimes poll mislead the public? By overcounting Trump-biased, MAGA participant groups in rural America. Its poll data is NOT a balanced picture of the political reality in America today but rather a snapshot of MAGA America. The Times polls include a significantly greater % of rural voters than can be justified by the demographics of America’s voting population. 22% of Americans live in rural counties. However, the Times poll has typically included 35% or more rural respondents, an overweighting of 59% in Trump America where he won in 2020 with 60% to 38% of the vote. To realistically interpret the Times polling data, Liberals should assume its polls and the journalists who quote it, are describing MAGA America, not the America where the majority of Biden’s 81 million voters live. It seems of late even Nate Cohn is waking up to his statistical aberration.
On a positive note, the Times poll results in May show Biden gaining ground. He’s leading in in Wisconsin and very close in 4 out of 5 others; VERY encouraging results for Joe Biden in a MAGA biased poll. If the Times adjusted its poll to 22% rural respondents, Biden would be ahead in 5 out of 6 swing states!
An interesting fact from the Times poll that Nate Cohn and the journalists NEVER report is that 70%-80% of all voters in swing states are “satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their situation in America today. Journalist repeatedly report that the majority are very dissatisfied with Biden because of inflation. After all, who likes inflation? But, perhaps, most voters in the Times poll think the effect of inflation is not ruining their life and might not be a major factor in November.
Biden’s age as a competitive disadvantage compared to Trump defies reality as both candidates are much older than the traditional age for a presidential candidate. In November, voters will face a binary decision based on the current behavior and mental capacity of either candidate. One candidate is executing the responsibilities of the presidency every day. He is successfully fighting wars in the Ukraine, in Israel, against MAGA extremism and to reduce inflation. That candidate is executing policies to reshore critical tech industries and reduce the effects of global warming. At the same time, he’s able to run an aggressive presidential campaign and lead powerful alliances in Asia and Europe to support democracy for the long term.
The other candidate grows more horrifyingly unattractive every day. That candidate seems to be running on an unrecognizable vision of American decline in a dystopian Zombie movie, entertaining to some of his MAGA base but far from the outlook of most Americans. How many of us are worried about electrocution vs. shark attacks?
If it wasn’t obvious at the beginning of 2020, it is now undeniable; Joe Biden is a true American political genius. We should be joyfully happy that Biden is willing to give the country another 4 years. We all need to work our tales off to get him elected.
Has anybody else noticed that Trump's "base" no longer exists in the way it did 4 years ago and 4 years before that? Not only do they not show up, they have grown quieter. The media have to go out looking for them, and often end up talking only to the few willing to be interviewed. I have never thought of these people as being "deplorable" and every time I hear that word, I cringe. At best, they are being misled, and at worst, their very real concerns are being distorted by suit-wearing opportunists using them. There's a good feeling about sharing something with other people who feel left out and left behind. Somebody is making a lot of money selling red hats and stuff to create a sense of community.
Yup, there are still the extreme right wingers, most of whom are simply angry people who habitually make a lot of noise. But they are not the "base" that the media loves to refer to.
I think that a good many of them are quiet because they are recognizing that things are different than they'd been led to believe, or are embarrassed, or simply because they are tired of it all. Or they are thinking, and feeling their way to another way of seeing things. Trump is showing that he is not who he said he was. They may show up, but don't stay. They may vote but maybe not for Trump. We don't know. But they are not the monolith the media and the wanna-be pollsters and pundits make them out to be. They are Americans and the sooner we recognize and accept that, the more likely it is that they will recognize that we are not their enemies. But first we have to stop acting as if they are our enemies.
I agree. "MAGA Nation" is a horror story fantasy the media loves because of its shock value. I also think it's dissipating. I hope the NYTimes will get over their MAGA fascination soon.
Wow!
A great summation. Thank you.
If the over-educated, under-intelligent, otherwise-unemployable trust fund babies at the WaPo and the DC Press Corpse (lookin' at you, Tara "I go to Washington parties and they'll never invite you" Parlmieri, the worst thing at Puck News and a "functional" political illiterate) think they'll get to "rage at Trump" after the election, if he wins, they have another think coming. Trump talks frequently about using his DOJ (and it will be his) to go after them and "get them." The looks on their faces will be so confused and sad when they're looking out from inside the barbed wire at the "security camp" in West Texas they'll be going to. And I won't feel bad for one of them.
The Washington Post doesn't deserve to survive, and anyone expecting Jeff Bezos to do a "good thing" probably still believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
It occurred to me that, if trump were to win, NO media outlets would be allowed to rage at him or about him, especially not the Washington Post. Trump is not a Jeff Bezos fan and would shut it down in a nanosecond.
Spot on, Jenn. If they really think that “Root against Biden during the campaign and then rage against Trump if he wins” is a profit-maximizing strategy they will be in for a rude awakening. Calling out a Führer in an autocracy comes at a heavy prize. Administrations from the federal level down to the state and local level will be breathing down your neck, from the IRS to fire marshalls to all kind of regulating authorities. And then of course there is the convicted felon's weapon of choice: lawyers. And he even doesn't have to pay himself as he will use a weaponized DOJ and the AGs in red states.
A good example for this and a harbinger of what might come is the felon's so far successful attempt to suppress the distribution of the film "The Apprentice."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/opinion/the-apprentice-trump-movie.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zk0.6ala.o7G4KWGymcnv&smid=url-share
Too right. I'm pretty sure Trump would shut down the (ha-ha) free press as one of the first achievements of his dictatorship. We must re-elect Pres. Biden!
And the Great Pumpkin. I think it's at least possible that the strategy is to support the Convicted Felon and failed insurrectionist long enough to maximize interest during the campaign and then discover new information that explains and justifies an endorsement of the President for re-election.
Well, Robert, once again you hit it out of the park. I have been at a loss to understand the actions of the NYT and WaPo. My best guess was trying to "obey in advance," as Timothy Snyder warns us not to do in the face of rising fascism. But that never made complete sense, because one thing we know about Trump is that he is out for revenge on every person and every institution that has "wronged" him, and the only two results that would be satisfactory would be their demise or their conversion to MAGA mouthpieces. Your formulation that they are betting on "rooting against Biden in the campaign and raging against Trump if he wins" seems like the best explanation I have heard.
As Rick Wilson famously said, "Everything Trump touches dies," and that appears to include our legacy media. It's very discouraging and worrying, but perhaps we are in transition to something different and better. I have canceled both, and support independent organizations like States Newsroom, The Bulwark and The Atlantic and my local paper (which does rely on WaPo and NYT for some of their content, so it's complicated).
One of the confounding things I encounter, is people who understand the threat of the extreme right wing that is embodied by the Trump candidacy, who continue to engage in the same behavior that got us to Trump 2016. I deal with them every day in my activities in Florida.
Today's Edition is about media mistakes. Why in the world would some in the NY Times, Washington Post, the Sunday interview shows, mainstream media, continue to engage in the same type of journalism that normalizes Trumpian racism, autocratic policy and behavior, including threats and actions designed to destroy the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate?
I was listening to the ABC interview of Sen. Scott who was blathering on about the bump stock decision, not answering the question, and the interviewer allowing him to blather on. I stopped listening to the program altogether.
We need the media. We need the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment. We need to consume media. Our responsibility is to applaud those who have learned from 2016 and call out those who continue the mistakes. Rather than refusing to consume the media, continue to call it out. Thank you for doing just that.
By the way, I have never heard those on Morning Joe apologize for their part in 2016, giving Trump gobs of airtime, never confronting him on his shady business deals, racism, promises of autocracy, continually highlighting Hillary Clinton's "untrustworthiness". But guess what? This time, they are calling out Trump completely, and they are making fun of the NY Times, Wash Post and other media focus on Biden's age or the polls. They get it, they stopped, and I am very glad.
Now in my backyard: Why in the world do some very smart, sincere activists continue to engage in the same divisive and competitive behavior, that got Florida into the mess we are now in? Competition is pretty standard and is a part of human nature. however, the level of it in the past, in Florida, rendered Democrats ineffective, at best.
But now, Democrats are coming back.
Because of changes at the state party level in early 2023 with a new party chairwoman, the Florida Democratic Party has had several electoral victories and successful campaign activities. One most recent campaign success includes the historic candidate recruitment achievement that now has ensured that no Republican will run unopposed in every state legislative race, both houses, and every congressional race. 100%. We did it.
The other success is that the Biden/Harris campaign is devoting resources and setting up headquarters in Florida, saying that they believe Florida is now in play, which is true. As Biden would say "not a joke". And voters will be able to vote to restore abortion rights in the November general election.
Now comes the hard part: The state party, and various Democratic organizations and individual activists, all are responsible for these successes. All of us should give one another credit and accolades, not devolve into competition regarding who did the most. If we cannot work together effectively, without all the competition, I fear all we have gained will be lost.
We have a lot of work to do to support all those candidates we recruited and got qualified. We cannot do it if we won't work with each other.
Equally important, liberal and progressive groups MUST recognize that the Florida Democratic Party is back, gaining in effectiveness, energizing Democrats to get to the polls in the August primary and the November general election. Whatever past grievances you have, get over it. The Democratic Party in Florida is all of us, the over 4 million registered Democrats, not the person who made you mad in 2020 or 2018, or 2000.
Continuing to put down the state and local parties will harm our ability to get Democrats out to vote. Cut it out.
We all need to work together now to end the one-party autocratic rule in Florida, and stop it from happening in the U.S. There is no excuse for continuing behavior that got us Trump 2016.
My sister lives in Florida. In a district that was blue and now is Red. She is super angry. Now Florida is in play because of the Abortion bans. I hope Florida women bring it home for the Democrats. I have a strong feeling they will. Trump, DeSantis, Rubio and Scott should be enough to bring all women out to vote......They poked the bear and the bear is us....
Hi, Adaline. thanks for your comment.
Please let your sister know that it is not just reproductive rights that will bring Dems out, although that will be a major incentive. It is also the hard work on the part of our new Chair, Nikki Fried, to get the state and local parties to work with one another again, instead of against one another.
As a result, her vibrant campaign strategies and activities allowed us to flip a legislative seat in Orlando, take the Jacksonville Mayor position away from Republicans, help get the abortion rights initiative on the ballot in November, and recruit Dems in every single state legislative and congressional race in Florida. no republicans unopposed. And I believe it is her leadership and those accomplishments that have caused the Biden/Harris campaign to set up shop in Florida.
Democrats have issues and candidates to vote for in Florida, including reproductive freedom.
But several of our large counties still see Democrats battling for control of their county organizations, and as a result, have been AWOL while the rest of us are working to support our democratic candidates and issues. Nikki and her team are working to straighten out the dynamics in those counties. Unfortunately, it will take more than a year to overcome years of that culture. But we have no choice but to get it done.
Judy Freiberg,
Thank you for your posting on the progress and the complexity of Democratic Party politics in Florida. You encourage us not to write off a state that is dominated by the Republican MAGA crowd. Very instructive and inspirational. You write: "We all need to work together now to end the one-party autocratic rule in Florida, and stop it from happening in the U.S. There is no excuse for continuing behavior that got us Trump 2016." AMEN! If Trump loses Florida, if Debbie Mucarsel-Powell beats Rick Scott, and down ballot Democrats win a few surprises, Florida wins and the country wins. Thanks for the encouraging insight. Rick Scott won his Senate by just over 10,000 votes in 2018. That's in a voting age population that was over 17,000,000 in 2020. That's less than 6/10,000ths of the voting age population.
Register folks, get out the votes of women and those men who happen to have mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, nieces, friends who are female, bosses who are female, direct reports who are femaile, students and/or colleagues who are nonbinary, transgender, or lesbian. That should add to a sizable constituency to oust the Republicans. We must work together. One job, one task: win seats for Democrats to save the state and the country.
Patrick. You get it. Thank you.
And thank you, Judy, for so clearly laying out what is going on in Florida. I knew people were working to turn things around, but your passion and dedication makes me believe it can happen. And will happen.
Love these women working so hard in Florida. Nikki Fried is a rock star.
Still an uphill battle in FL but your comments reflect what I am reading in other publications, that the Dems have not given up! And no office will go unopposed?? That’s a big deal
And we have money for these boots on the ground issues. Trump does not.
Excellent, Judy Freiberg!
Robert, as I understand it Carol Leonnig, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist, confronted this new editor after the firing of Sallie Buzbee. She was none too happy. I think they all leave Jennifer Rubin alone since she has a large following and the fact that she was (is?) a lawyer. Wonder what the headline at NYT and WAPO will be after Biden wins!
Everyone is getting hung up on this story about the WaPo and coming to conclusions not warranted. No one has mentioned the headline and stories pro Biden.
I cancelled my Post subscription last year when they ran the opinion piece on the inevitability of a Trump Presidency. Irresponsible then; irresponsible now. Get most of my news from The Guardian.
An opinion is an opinion: it belongs to the author of the piece alone, not the paper. The Post has long had a policy of including a range of opinions by authors of different persuasions. It doesn't mean that the Post agrees with any of them: that's for us to decide. Personally, I want to know what the people in the right lane and the screwball lane are thinking. It is useful information. The Post could do a better job of separating them out online from actual reportage, which is not the same thing. They DO, however, clearly differentiate their own editorials, which are bylined by the Post Editorial Board.
I also have some issues with WaPo, especially misleading headlines on what are otherwise thoughtful articles. I often write to the Post (not in the comments of specific articles) about my concerns about how something is covered. So far, I have not unsubscribed. I do also read the Guardian, and get a different perspective, one that often feels more on mark. But not always. Reading both gives me a way to look at things from different angles. The Guardian does do a better job of identifying when a piece is opinion, not reporting.
I will stay with the WaPo as long as it provides accurate information about what is affecting things that matter to me. That includes some opinion pieces. I ignore the ones by authors that I find uninformed, uninformative, off-base, insulting, or just plain stupid. The piece you mentioned (about the so-called inevitability of a Trump presidency) fell squarely into the last category. I just ignored it. There are other things in the Post still worth reading, including the opinion pieces by Jennifer Rubin and several others, and some fine reportage, and sometimes even a recipe or a little humor. It is, after all, a newspaper.
I understand the difference among news stories, editorial stances, and opinion pieces. I still think it was irresponsible of WP to offer a platform to someone declaring that Trump's reelection was inevitable. I wrestled with my decision, finally decided I didn't want to support a business providing that platform. Used my WP$ for The Guardian.
I too am a long time Washington Post subscriber and plan to remain one due to my respect for many of their journalists. However, that does not restrict me criticisms of them when they get it wrong. My recent letters to the editor sent to them feature those criticisms on their current stumbles. I feel my status Asa long time subscriber and supporter of the WaPo should lend some weight to the criticisms. We will see if that is the case.
Supporting quality journalism and criticizing irresponsible journalism are both civic responsibilities. Thank you for doing both.
That WaPo article on the two Limey Turds may just be the beginning of the revolt that will see them flushed. Products of the worst media baron in history: Rupert Murdoch.
It's really too bad the Arab who found the young Australian Flying Corps pilot who crashed his airplane in the Tigris-Euphrates marshes in World War I hadn't been a little later with his discovery. Then the young flyer wouldn't have survived, been put on a hospital ship back to Australia, fallen in love with his nurse who he married, and then became parents of their son, Rupert.
Oh, jeez, limey turds and orange turds now...what's next? Too bad that young flyer beat the odds. Did you know that Putin's father found his pregnant (with Putin) wife lying half-dead in the rubble of some Soviet riot, rescued her, nursed her back to life, and enabled her to give birth to Putin? It's well put forth in the documentary Active Measures (the romance of Putin and Trump). https://www.amazon.com/s?k=active+measures&i=movies-tv&crid=BNV99VLE52XX&sprefix=active+measures%2Cmovies-tv%2C128&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
Another example for history (and our individual lives) just being a continuous string of coincidences.
And also reminders that little decisions and actions can have big ramifications. Today's Edition shows that every day. Someone recommends an article that leads someone else to give $10 to a political campaign three states away. Or a comment sparks someone to think differently, be more hopeful, inspire someone else to write postcards or buy a t-shirt in support of Biden-Harris and wear it to the grocery store....and on and on.
We are all butterflies flapping our wings in Kansas and causing rain to fall in Central Park days later. (I know this last sentence is a gross simplification of chaos theory, but it is a powerful metaphor for action helping us fight off questions in our own minds and the hearts of others, e.g. "My vote won't matter" or "It won't make any difference if we point out Trump's madness because his followers are all slavishly devoted". As Timothy Snyder reminds us: we must not surrender to the tyrant prematurely.) Little things count. In 2022 Democrat Kris Mayes defeated Republican Abraham Hamadeh by 280 votes to become the Arizona Attorney General. As a result Rudy Giuliani and others were indicted for election fraud. Because of that, lets say, there's x minutes of more coverage about Republican election fraud and voter oppression, which helps lead 10 people in each of swing states to vote for Biden and 10 more to be so disgusted with Trump that they don't vote for Trump even though they voted for him in 2020, and they persuade by their example 10 more Republicans to give up on the corruption in the Trump and lies in Trump's campaign. And this with a lot of other actions leads to a Biden-Harris reelection.
It's tiring flapping those ol' butterfly wings and friends will ask us, maybe in gentler words, "Why are you wasting your time?: And all over America, the cynical and the uncaring will laugh at us and chant the whiny cry of the lazy and thoughtless who think they are clever and sophisticated but are really sounding the death of democracy, "Who cares? Why bother? What difference does it make?"
For fun, see Jeff Goldblum's Dr. Malcolm on chaos theory (now called by some complexity theory) in Jurassic Park https://youtu.be/3lZy3teNY84?si=IQpJVPt70DSkaL6D.