36 Burst results for "New York Times"
Rachel Bovard on What Makes Trump Different
"Joining us now is Rachel bovard, who wrote a very interesting piece of The New York Times. What makes Trump different from desantis and other Republicans, Rachel is with us right now, Rachel, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. So Rachel, why don't you summarize the piece for our audience and we'll dive into it from there? So the piece really looks into what I think is the appeal of Donald Trump. And I think people in Washington, particularly establishment Republicans, and even sort of what I call a conservative intelligentsia, missed this. And this is exactly the dynamic I saw play out in 2016 and it's going to play out again in 2024 because people in leadership of the Republican Party have no idea still have no idea why it is that Trump won. And it is this visceral connection that he has with his base voters who trust him implicitly. And interestingly, Dave Chappelle honed in on this, I think, really well when he was hosting Saturday Night Live recently. I don't watch Saturday Night Live personally, but I caught this clip and I thought he articulated it extremely well. He said, look, I live in Ohio. You people have no idea why Trump is so popular there. And he said, Trump is what I call an honest liar. And what he meant by that was, you know, he pointed back to this debate that Trump had with Hillary Clinton in 2016, where Trump basically said, look, I know the system is rigged because I use it. And that was just, I think, distilled to its essence, the why people trust Trump the way that they do. Because he set out loud as a beneficiary of someone at the top of the system who benefited from how it's going to rigged and corrupt toward the top. He set out loud what everybody at the bottom has long suspected, which is that the system itself is rigged and because he benefited from it. He had tremendous credibility in pointing that out. And so people, I think, who vote for Trump really see him as someone who can not bend the system because he's been part of it.
Fresh update on "new york times" discussed on Red Eye Radio
"Listen to this, he quote apparently was a target of online bullying and showed signs of a fascination with gay culture. Everybody on the left wants to lie or make I should say they want to make up their own theories. They want to take it and use it to take away our rights, gun rights, our Second Amendment, and our First Amendment for freedom of speech, and they want to shut the critics down. They call you and me, even if we don't hate anybody, even if we just disagree, shut us down, take away our platform, deplatform us, take away our jobs, take away our ability for commerce to hold bank accounts, control where we go. In fact, we find out that it's possible in this guy also guess what else came out tonight. This terrorist also says that he wants to be referred to as they them pronouns. And MX instead of mister or miss. Are you finding this out tonight? Yes, you are. The New York Times grabbing some of the I should say filings and they have it on their Twitter feed. I retweeted this, you can follow me on Twitter at criss-cross show that's at Kris kroc show CH RIS care okay. This came out from The New York Times tonight in a new court filing public defenders for the suspect in the mass shooting at Colorado gay club. They'll have 5 people dead say that their client is non binary and they use they them pronouns. The lawyers refer to their client as MX Anderson Aldrich instead of mister or miss Anderson Aldrich. They then so the lie or the possible lie. That this is a straight white male trumper, we had Nancy Pelosi, blaming Trump for this. We had several Republicans, and I think people on the view, the leftist hens on the view, saying that it is Donald J Trump We had the daily mail reporting that his grandfather is his, I guess, paternal or material. One of the grandfather is a current representative in state government in California and is a Monica guy and they got a picture of him and we're in the maga hat and it's his fault. Even though he may not have ever seen this grandfather based on what we're learning, it's still his fault guys. Guess what? Is it possible? That this guy who says is that they them and is an act not a mister or miss. Is it possible that he's a spurned lover he has a spurned gay lover who's in that club? And that he went under to shoot it up because, according to the Chargers, because his lover is in there with somebody else. I mean, think of it. What if he what if there's somebody who's straight? And their wife leaves him for another man, and the man goes to this regular, straight bar quote unquote. And at the straight bar, for lack of better term, this his wife and some other guy go there every night and get drunk and carouse. And so finally this man spurned by his wife, goes to that bar and commits a violent act like this. Not because he's against straight people. You're not going to hear people on the left come out and say, he's a straight phobe. He's a persecutor of straight people. Right. You hear him say that we need to take away guns. But you won't hear them say he's attacking straight people, or straight white people, if it's a straight of a country bar or something, you know what I mean? So what are they going to say? Is it possible that that's like this, but the guy might be gay? Now that the Denver gazette has committed journalism tonight? And that The New York Times has committed journalism. That's very exceedingly rare for them. And it says that he wishes to update such as a target of online bullying and showed signs of a fascination with gay culture. Wow. Well, now the whole thing may be blown up, huh? Which one do you blame here? Do you blame guns? 'cause they're telling us to blame guns yesterday they're telling us to blame. Disagreement with the child drag brunches or, you know, the LGBTQ lifestyle. Which one is who do you blame or what do you blame for this? Our number is 8 6 6 9 zero 7 33 39 8 9 8 6 6 9 9 right at 8 6 6 9 zero 7 33 39 and when we come back I'm gonna explain and I'll tell you who I blame for this. What entity or thing I blame for this
Hugh Isn't Buying Sam Bankman-Fried's Mea Culpa Apology
"Many articles on Sam, bankman free. Sam bankman fried ran FTX as a personal teacher, according to the Financial Times. FTX assets still missing as the firm begins bankruptcy process, according to The New York Times. This, from the Financial Times as well, Sam bankman fried issues a mayor couple letter to former FTX employees, calling them family. We frantically put everything together. It claimed Pierre, the position, it's just this nonsense. It's gobbledygook. I deeply regret my oversight failure. I lost track of the most important things in the commotion of company growth. I don't actually think that's true. Not when you've got a $120 million worth of Bahama pads. Nope, not buying that. You didn't have anything all of a sudden you think it's your money? Nope.
The NYT Is Eager to Blame the Spread of COVID on YOU
"A meanwhile, The New York Times eager to blame any spread of COVID on you. If you use anything they consider to be a far right platform, that includes gap. Now I don't use gab, but I don't know what's on gab. All I know is that it's a year after omicron surge officials see a reduced COVID threat this winter, who are the officials, Anthony Fauci, does anyone care no? Really? I mean, I've never seen such shattered credibility from the public health agencies ever. A lasting legacy of COVID far right platform spreading health myth. Now, I think that's absurd. Here I am, a conservative talk show host center Wright, perhaps got my two boosters, told this in the beginning, get your two vaccines, got your three boosters. I've got them still haven't had COVID. I fully expect somewhere down the road. I will get it, and I help my immune system has developed the necessary antibodies. No misinformation, there is a tunnel full of people who want to worry about that and that they're fine, but they don't do it on right wing. They find each other everywhere. You don't need to say this is a conspiracy theory. It's not. The CDC dropped the ball the FDA dropped the ball. Parts of the Trump administration originally, while they were doing warp speed, dropped the ball on the communications because they were being driven by Tony Fauci. And now the entire government is wrapped up in trying to prove that they didn't do anything wrong. In fact, public health completely botched the entire pandemic.
The Left Wants to 'Columbus Day' Thanksgiving
"In today's Los Angeles Times about how Thanksgiving should go the way of Columbus day. It should be noted it should be noted that you can not have the Thanksgiving. Without the LA times. Yeah, no, that's correct. It's not just Thanksgiving. Remember what The New York Times did LastPass over. It was, for every religious holiday, The New York Times, the LA times, I don't know about The Washington Post, but I would presume it would be similar. We'll write an article debunking the validity of that holiday. People who have nothing hate those who have something. And I don't mean, in terms of material possessions. They have nothing. They don't have religion. They don't have love of country. They have nothing, and they hate those who have something. I wrote about this many years ago in explaining George Soros. George Soros has no religious or national identity, and he hates those who do have a religious or national identity. The left is their identity is the identity of biology. And I don't even mean male female because they don't even have that. It is the identity of blood. That is the only identity the left has. The identity of race.
Paul Kengor on Bella Dodd's Struggle Against Communism
"In the 1930s, many, many people thought communism was the wave of the future. It was a good thing. It made tremendous inroads. People were we have apologists for Stalin, you know, getting Pulitzer prizes in The New York Times. It was a time before much of the world knew the satanic evil of the Soviet Union. And so you had a lot of these folks that were, they really believed somehow that communism was a good thing. Obviously, bellad was one. So what was it that they saw or that they believed communism could bring about? And when did they, when did she begin to see that this wasn't the case that this crusade that she was on had not been a good thing? Well, kind of the final thing, I'll hit that first that pulled her in was fascism. And there's a quote from her in the book. She said, I joined the devil himself, but that's what it took to fight fascism. Now, of course, you don't have to be a communist to fight to fight fascism, right? But the party was really good at creating groups with front groups with names like the American League against Warren fascism. But in her case, she came to America, she was born in Italy in 1904. So Eric she had this beautiful Italian Catholic name, right? Mary asante Isabella of the stono, which means like the assumption of the blessed mother, right? And she comes to America and she came to New York, her family brought her here for a better life. And she immediately fell in with radical elements in her grade school in her high school at hunter college in New York. College was a hotbed of the dish. That's a fact.
Mike Rowe: 7 Million Men Are Choosing Not to Work
"And I continue to quote. And I mean, last week, there was an article in The New York Times called something like how to combat the assault on modern work. And I thought it was going to be an article about coal miners or crab fishermen. You know those tough guys, this is me going out of the quote like deadly catch stuff like that. Or you know big tough jobs where the danger is real micro says. It wasn't. It was an article about everything from paper cuts to the non existent pet bereavement policies that are being deemed harsh. And he says, I'm not making this stuff up. And so we are, we're in a place where 7 million able bodied men are not only not working between the ages of 25 and up 7 million able bodied men are not only not working, they're affirmatively not looking for a job. That's never happened in peacetime. He says, ever.
Glenn Kirschner: It's Time for an Investigation Into Justice Alito
"You tweeted Congress if you're listening. It's time for an investigation. I'd fashion it an impeachment inquiry of justice Alito, his lies to the Senate to the American people into the late senator Ted Kennedy must be investigated because women's constitutional rights matter. Yeah, I got to get your take on this latest bombshell report about justice Alito leaking. Yeah, The New York Times made it pretty clear in its reporting. I think two days ago, a couple mister and misses Wright had dinner with another couple, mister and misses Alito, and the next day, misses Wright contacted this reverend shank is his name and said, I've got some very interesting information. No emails, please, and then she told him that basically Alito authored the hobby lobby opinion. Another opinion that basically is religion over the rule of law, and that hobby lobby is gonna win. So Alito leaked his own opinion, the hobby lobby opinion. Don't you think he probably also leaked the Dobbs opinions revoking women's constitutional privacy rights? Yeah. And then acted all huffy about it.
What's Next for the Ukrainians?
"Let's get right to the essential thing, which is the Ukrainian winter offensive. Two stories about this in The New York Times that Ukraine expects to go over to the offensive. Now, I don't, I'm not a military experience. I just read the books about the winter war in Finland. And the Russians, you know, what do you think are the odds that any significant change in the battlefield will occur now that winter is descending upon Russia and its neighbor Ukraine? I think the odds of a significant shift are low, but not impossible because of the ongoing collapse of Russian brow. Having said that, you are sufficiently tuned in to military tactics to know that offense is. One is to three meetings. You got to have three times as many troops on offensive overcome a dug in component and that's why the Russians had a lot of trouble at the front end of the Ukrainian defense, Russia didn't have that three to one ratio overwhelmed them. Now, down south, the Ukrainians who have to come up with the three to one. But here's how they're compensated. They're using special force brilliantly. They are used in the advanced Thrones. They are maneuvering around and cutting out supply lines. So there's a balance there. What I'm watching also suited to kind of conclude an overview is the electric grid on the Ukrainian side. You know, in a sense, we're in a tale of two wars here. One is the groundwork to the south. Ukrainian winning. But in the air war over you in the strike against the electric grid going into the winter very significant. That's the other war we ought to be focused on.
Democrats Will Set Precedent if They Prosecute Trump
"So what damage was done to the United States when it comes to these documents Nothing was done to the United States when it comes to these documents Nothing And you have to really come up with a almost fictional type tale to put in your charging documents if you're going to take on Donald Trump On this interference issue and you're going to create a precedent For every single politician in this country but the Democrats don't care because they usually control The Department of Justice and the rest of it And there's this long piece in The New York Times By aruna this wasna and Sadie gurman Talk about a sprawling investigation into 2010 Sprawling investigation Why Why are they doing this It's a funny thing You keep hearing the media say let's get on from this 2020 You keep hearing republik say the same thing Let's get on stop looking at the past Stop being a victim move on move on already for crying out loud The people don't want to hear about this The reason Donald Trump keeps talking about it and I haven't talked to him about this It's because they're trying to send him to prison You understand what I'm saying That's what they're doing
Rejecting Medical Myths
"I have no problem. I don't care if it sounds like I'm bragging. I don't care how it sounds. It's more important. The issue is more important than me. I was right the whole time about lockdowns about vaccinations. I was right the whole time. April 2020, I said it was the greatest universal mistake ever made. Sweden proved me right and the decimation of young people in this country proved me right as well. The sick world of the hypochondriac left wing teachers of this country, what they produced, the damage they did to your children, desecrated the word teacher. It's okay. The number of people in medicine who have desecrated the word medicine is also very high. So here's another one. Gradually, in the sick world of The New York Times, which lied to you about people who oppose the vaccine as fanatics or people who oppose lockdowns as fanatics, and supported the firing of people for not getting vaccinated and supported kicking out the best of our military who refused to be vaccinated. Why a healthy person and you don't get physically healthier than the average person in the military like 22 years old and great shape. Why they should get this, the chances of there being hurt by the vaccine were greater than their chances of being helped by the vaccine for a healthy young person.
Police: Man with ax, sword asked to enter NY Times newsroom
"Police in New York say an armed man entered The New York Times building I Norman hall Authorities say the man carrying an axe and sword went into the lobby of The New York Times building and asked to speak to the political section He then handed over his weapons and waited for emergency personnel when he was denied entry The New York police department said officers responded to the times building in midtown Manhattan shortly afternoon after getting a 9-1-1 call when officers arrived building security told him the man had the two weapons He was then taken to the hospital for evaluation at times representative thank police for resolving the situation quickly and peacefully By Norman hall
Charles Payne: Did Sam Bankman-Fried Buy Protection From Democrats?
"But it's very interesting to me the Democrats don't seem really angry about this Here they are busy getting things done that they want to rush through but they don't even want a hearing on this The SEC the failures there and the other regulatory entities that are out there You have big tech that monitors their own platforms but apparently didn't care about this And I look at this and I say to myself was this guy buying protection from the Democrat party because the Democrats are much more aggressive in their investigations and Republicans Right Yeah it's possible And in fact I had a guest on today who was a Bitcoin expert And it's not just the Democratic Party in the regulators but the media Since all of this has come out yesterday The New York Times wrote a glowing article about this guy Never mentioned a word fraud never mentioned the word crimes never mentioned any of those words They did talk about how little sleep he gets and Internet he was frugal even though he has a $40 million pad in The Bahamas He flies around in private jets Vox wrote an article saying that the talk of him having influence over the Democrats is over is oversimplified or exaggerated Forbes wrote an article suggesting he and his parents practice I think you call it it's called utilitarianism and apparently this doctrine that you go through life and you try to help as many people as possible So Forbes wrote an article saying whatever he did was altruistic in an effort to help other people This is the media circling the wagons around this guy who has ripped off a million people are now creditors in this bankruptcy Billions of dollars and they're making him out they're still trying to make them out to be a hero
New York Times: Throw Your Feelings About Trump Into a Blackhole
"I've been impressed that the mainstream media treated Trump's announcement last night as the bona FIDE news story that it is. I just had a feeling they mock it and they did largely. The New York Times, The New York Times, wants people to take their feelings and put them into a black hole so that Trump can stop living rent free in their heads. I'm not kidding you. I told Joey hutchin about it this morning in South Carolina. He said, you're making that up. Oh no, I'm not. New York Times Patrick Healy deputy opinion editor. How are you feeling today about Donald Trump? Now he's back in our lives as a presidential candidate. We had an idea. My colleagues and I came up with an idea at The New York Times. Why not take all of our thoughts, feelings, obsessiveness, and distraction that Trump inspires and cash them into our own black hole? Could that little act give us some of our emotional energy and brain space back? Oh yeah, they've devised a black hole as a link that you should plant your feelings about Trump's return. I kid you not.
NY Times: FBI Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest
"The New York Times tweeted out yes sir New York Times by the way I'm not talking about the blaze or breitbart or bongino dot com The New York Times which is interesting because we were told this was a conspiracy Definitely a conspiracy theory They tweeted out the FBI had as many as 8 informants inside the Proud Boys in the months around the January 6th capitol attack recent court papers indicate they do Wow 'cause I was told that was a crazed conspiracy theory The New York Times notes raising questions about how much federal investigators were able to learn from them before and after it took place You know I'm going to talk about this more after the break but it's days like today do you ever say to yourself listening to this program as my grandmother used to call radius at the program You ever say to yourself it's incredible that the New York slimes right These people have millions upon millions of dollars to go dig up news that you knew about a year ago Do you ever say that to yourself
Did the FBI Informants Find Any Crimes by the Proud Boys?
"Folks we already told you that about a year ago based on multiple sources that there were highly likely to be FBI informants in there we were told it was a conspiracy theory to ignore it the fact checkers of course probably had a field day banned people I'm just proud to be on the right side of the information arc of history why the Democrats are constantly stupid They figure out things a year later they put it out in The New York Times They're like hey look at what look Look at what we did We reported the news Yeah a year and a half too late So I have some questions about that Given that I'm very familiar with how confidential human sources work what exactly were these confidential human sources doing and who were they reporting too Now you would like to believe that there was some reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed by these Proud Boys if the FBI was working with confidential human sources in the investigation of a crime But what was the crime Was the crime not being antifa Does the FBI have confidential human sources inside BLM and antifa too Folks these are pretty serious questions because if they don't to organizations we know we know have committed the acts of terrorism in front of the cameras Ben that says to me that there's a political motivation here not necessarily a law enforcement one which says to me we've got even bigger problems
Steve Deace Discusses His New Book Titled 'Why Thanksgiving?'
"Welcome back I'm talking to Steve dais, T Eric metaxas show. Steve has a new book out called why Thanksgiving. I wrote a book on Thanksgiving called the squanto in the miracle of things giving and I talk about Thanksgiving and the roots of Thanksgiving in my book. If you can keep it, I did not know you had a book on Thanksgiving. Tell us about your book titled why Thanksgiving. Well, about a year ago, my publisher came to me and asked me if I'd consider doing a line of children's books. So I'm like, having a bunch of people already done that, you know, like rush before he passed at his great series. And I said, I'll consider it if we can do something different. How about America's Christian heritage, a series on that? And they were all for it, and then asked me, called my bluff and said, what should be first? And I said, well, I guess we should start at the beginning. America's Christian heritage begins with the pilgrims and the Puritans. And Thanksgiving. And so I basically took the history and I don't know if you've ever tried writing a children's book before Eric. This was very difficult. I must have been an 8 drafts of this thing. You don't realize I've written 30 children's books. I didn't know that. I needed about two New York Times best sellers, but I know you were in that many children's books. I've written 30 each other. I'm a lot older than you, but children's books in a way are much harder to write. The books for adults because you can't fake it. You got to be clear as a bell. And it's got to be water to the molecular down to the molecular level. And so I normally turn in a draft. We do one round of edits when I do a book and we're good, and we did like 8 rounds on this one, but I'm very proud of it.
Republicans Had Mixed Success Electing People to Local School Boards
"School board candidates who pushed parental rights he mixed results. That's the reason for concern. You read that article, right? It's from a Wall Street Journal, and it's very important to remember The Wall Street Journal news department is not the same as the opinion and editorial department. It is quite to the left. I wouldn't say it's left, I would say it's liberal. There is very little in common between The Wall Street Journal editorial page and opinion page and their news pages. On the other hand, The New York Times, the opinion pages and the news pages are identical. Conservative candidates who ran for school board saying they would change what students learn about race sex and gender or who opposed COVID protocols saw mixed results in Tuesday's election, according to supporters and a sampling of nationwide results, ballot PB, a nonpartisan election site, analyzed 361 races and found that about 36% of candidates who opposed school COVID protocols diversity initiatives or the use of gender neutral learning materials won their elections. Only one out of three. This is about a serious a reason for concern about the American people as I have come across recently.
Midterm Results Continue to Roll In
"Midterm results continue to come in and of course one question is why are they coming in so late? The New York Times keeps talking about technical glitches and Republicans are calling into question these elections and to my knowledge, no one has actually said that the elections of fraudulent, the 2022 elections, but there are lots of there's lots of frustration, law, why does this happen only in swing states? Why is it taking so long to count a relatively small number of votes? How come other countries do it so much more quickly? So yeah, my cousin, Venezuelan cousin, is like wondering, hey, guys, what's going on? I mean, you know, third world country can do it faster. What are you doing? What's going on? What's going on? Two big results that did come out. One is that Blake masters lost in Arizona. That's a disappointment I was hoping that masters would make it master's campaign kind of together would carry Lake and holiday. They were kind of campaigning as a team, but of course what happens is you got to realize that even if they're campaigning as a team, they're not going to be judged as a team. People are going to judge masters against Mark Kelly and this guy is very chameleonic, very clever, and playing the astronaut car. You always thought he said that. And also the other cardi plays very well is his wife, congresswoman Gabby, is that yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, you know, she was shot ten years ago, 11 years ago. And so he plays, he plays that card really well. The combination. The combination of gun violence and all those things. So I knew that he wanted to go to Washington to kind of hammer at the gun control issue. On a happier note for us, in Nevada, a big result, Joe lombardo running in the governor's race, knocks out the incumbents. Yeah, and he's like so cute. He's like this old sheriff guy, you know? It's like I loved his I love this campaign come up with a sister I kept announcing and saying he's ineffective and so on and but so I can give him a speech basically saying that sheriff and the country is right here Joe lombardo stand up Joe. Let's have a round of applause for Joe so lombardo just played that as his ad saying listen, this is coming from my apartment. Very effective.
"new york times" Discussed on The Kicker
"Hi, welcome to the kicker. I'm Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of the Columbia journalism review. This week, the new editor of The New York Times. So there are a few jobs in journalism that generate the amount of speculation and gossip as the executive editor of the times. We've known for months now that dean McKay, who's been in that job, would be stepping down because he turned 65 in the fall. And the only question was who is going to succeed him and would that result in a change of course? Of the newspaper. The times announced that Joe Kahn, who has been managing editor of the paper in the number two job, would be stepping up into beke's role. There's a widely held view that that is not going to result in major changes. To the place. And in fact, that fact that we shouldn't be expecting radical change has been disappointing to some people who think that especially in this moment of great peril in the democracy of America, we should be seeing bigger changes at a place like the times. I sat down with Joe Kahn and dean McKay on Thursday, two days after the announcement of cons hiring. And we talked about objectivity. We talked about wurtele. We talked about how they both see the newspaper and what it's become. Can you guys shed some light on how this process of picking a new editor works? It's completely opaque in my mind. Is there a committee or are there interviews? What happens? We bring the Cardinals together. I knew there was going to be a white smoke. No, it's the publisher's call. It's AG's call. And what I tried to do was in my commitment to him when I became the editor is that I would make sure there was a slate of candidates that people who he could sort of think through and get to know. And. There is no committee. It's essentially his call. And he spent a lot of time with Joe. Which Joe can talk about, and he spent a lot of time with some other leaders in the newsroom. Because I don't think he just thought about it. Nor did I as picking the next executive editor, obviously that's the most important and the most visible choice, but I also think he wanted to make sure there was a leadership team overall to lead the place into the next generation. And the only ad is it's, with AG, it's been much more I mean, it's a very thoughtful process. I mean, we even start to think about the next generation after just generation, which obviously Joe is going to be the one to nurture. But I mean, I think we just, he's just trying to identify a whole bunch of people who can lead the place going forward. But it's not any more mysterious than that. And when was when did all that start? When did those conversations begin in earnest?.
"new york times" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Stand. She bombed. It was catastrophic in my view. She bombed, I think, at every juncture. You know, she came off as authentic, a family person, someone who believes in her politics, I think that when she was originally being questioned by her friendly counsel, her own attorney, she did pretty well. But once they got into the nitty Gritty of things, it became a complete disaster in my view. There was one point in which her attorney was questioning her about the editorial. And he asked her about her reaction to the editorial, and she starts talking about how everybody in her inner circle realized that she needed to respond again to The New York Times as lies. And so all of a sudden the judge said, well, again, what do you mean by again? Because it was pretty well established that this was a one off, you know? This was a discrete error by The New York Times? Yeah. And then she's like, yeah, well, you know, they did this before. And the judge was like, before the editorial was published, they did this same thing. And they go back and forth and the judge says, what specifics do you have? And she says, well, you know, the link that they established between me and political incitement, and of course I don't have the articles in front of me here. And to anybody who's listening to Sarah Palin for the past decade or so. You know that her broadsides against the media are these generic broad brush mainstream media things. For these lame stream media characters to get all wee weed up about that. First you have to ask yourself, have they ever ever attended a Sunday school class even have they never heard this terminology before? And she's never really pushed to state her tastes or builds her tastes or sight supporting links and evidence. And so they were like, what are you talking about? And then this forced a huge sidebar where they had to leave the courtroom, I think their sidebar is now down the hall because of COVID. But they were in there for a good ten, 15 minutes, trying to figure out this situation because they didn't want to poison the jury, having the jury think that The New York Times did this multiple times. Since Sarah Palin, did she blow it bad enough to blow her case? I mean, jeez, I don't know, I can't put myself in the jury box, but I felt that blue an enormous hole in the credibility of her case. If only because the times put forth people who were real sober detail oriented and they did not jump out of their own brief. You know what I mean? They never once went over the line factually, they never once really got the court to slip up and say, what are you talking about? They were just outstanding, you know? You know, in the context of having made this huge mistake. You could see how they all felt terrible about this mistake. And then Palin comes up there, and she sounds like, you know, she's still on Fox News. The contrast with The New York Times journalist was 100%. Hey folks, I'm Heather Cox Richardson, and I'm Joanne Freeman. We're the hosts of now and then, a weekly podcast that looks to the American past to make sense of our current political and cultural climate. There's been a wave of headlines recently about book bands. School boards and state governments are trying to outlaw the teaching of books that they find objectionable. From art spiegelman's mouse, to Toni Morrison's the bluest eye. This week, on now and then, we're releasing the first episode of a three part series. The series will dive deep into past book panics, explore why public schools so often become ideological battlegrounds and dissect the interplay between book bands and political bullying. Join us as we try to make sense of the role that bands have played in our national culture and explain why we're seeing so many bands today. Listen for free on Apple, cafe dot com or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever wondered whether New York City bagels are really better because of the water or why the mafia got its start in Sicily's lemon groves, or if those CBD infused seltzers actually do what they promise. Gastropod is a podcast exploring food through the lens of science and history, each episode journeys into the weird and wonderful as we uncover everything you never knew about your favorite foods. I'm Cynthia graber. And I'm Nikola Tilly. And whether you're obsessed with food or someone who wants to learn more about what's on your plate, we'd love for you to join us. Listen and follow gastropod on apple or wherever you listen to podcasts. Did you enjoy your week in New York City? You know I did, Katie, and I wasn't sure I would at first, New York is, of course, home to the liberal media elite, but Todd and the kids had a great time going to the Central Park and the FAO Schwartz and that goofy evolution museum. Eric, it sounds like in your eyes at least Sarah Palin kind of blew her argument here at this trial. And she might be blowing for her at least a golden opportunity to sue the so called mainstream media for libel and win. Why is it so hard to do that in the first place? In 1964, The New York Times versus Sullivan case, the court decided that we need a robust political marketplace. We need a place where news organizations can feel emboldened to really, really criticize the people who make big decisions about.
"new york times" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Up against a Tea Party favorite. And the times publishes an editorial about these shootings. So what happened in this 2017 editorial was the times was trying to make an argument trying to fasten an argument about how political rhetoric had amped up the possibility that we would see political violence in this country. And they citing that 2011 shooting. Claimed that there was a quote unquote political incitement link between a map that Sarah Palin's political action committee had circulated before the lochner shooting months before the loughner shooting. In fact, as a lot of reporting indicated after that 2011 shooting, there was no link between that Sarah PAC map and the Jared Lee loughner shooting. But the times said there was this political incitement link. What exactly did Palin take issue with in this editorial? We're talking about two or three sentences that are in two paragraphs in this editorial. The main passage is, in 2011, when Jared Lee loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding representative Gabby Giffords and killing 6 people, including a 9 year old girl. The link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put misses Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized, crosshairs. And then in the next paragraph, they basically compare the two shootings and they say, though there's no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack. Liberals should, of course, so those are two instances there, where they're really, really, you know, their own factual territory pretty much. Was the times within its sort of editorial guidelines to write this or was this objectively wrong? I think that in today's media age, opinion writers get more and more leeway to do what they do and that's always the commonly cited defense for what Fox News Sean Hannity Tucker Carlson. Their opinion journalist. There are talk show hosts. But in this case, the answer would be no. The times did not have the authority to say what it said because it was directly contradicted by objective facts that had already been reported. And The New York Times itself would acknowledge and does acknowledge that its opinions piece is need to be based on a commonly shared factual basis. And this was not anything close to that. And so they published the editorial and they learned pretty quickly from Twitter that they had problems. Ross doubt that, who was a colleague and a conservative columnist at the times, alerted the editorial page editor James Bennett, via email to this problem. I would be remiss if I didn't express my bafflement at the editorial that we just ran on today's shootings and political violence. James was clearly starting to get unnerved. He later testified he didn't sleep that night and sent an email to his colleagues at 5 O 8 the next morning, saying we need to get to the bottom of this and perhaps run a correction, but we need to learn the truth. He said. How does that go? Well, I don't think it took them that long to figure it out because the editorial itself had linked to a story that debunked it. Right within the editorial itself was a link to an ABC News story, saying, you know, that there is no link between the Sarah pax map and what Jared Lee loughner had done. You know, and this is what made, I think this suit somewhat plausible is that this was really widely debunked. And for them to just insert this and say it was fact, you could possibly think that it was evidence of reckless disregard or knowing falsehood. Yeah. Given that it had been anybody who followed this back then, probably would have known. So the times corrects itself, but Sarah Palin still decides to sue? Yes, a 100%. She says she was harmed and obviously she has been a critic of The New York Times and the mainstream media for a really long time. You're seeing some idiots in the press. In this case, I think that she had a genuine group. And people who have dismissed her suit when her suit initially came out, I put a headline on my piece saying it was a convincing lawsuit. And I took a lot of heat for that. And my response to those people who are upset with my original assessment is, well, you've probably never been accused by The New York Times of inciting a mass murder. So I think it was a pretty serious thing. So heading into this trial, what exactly do Sarah Palin and her lawyers have to prove? What Sarah Palin and her lawyers have to prove is one of two things. Either The New York Times published this falsehood fully knowing that it was false, or they have to prove that the times published it with reckless disregard. As to its truth or falsity, which basically means they have to prove that the times entertained serious doubts about its truthfulness. And that's a real tough thing to do because you can't just document that they define industry standards or industry guidelines or best practices as the wonks might say. They have to prove that James Bennett walked by like informational signposts telling him that this was wrong. This case is pretty close because it's proven that James Bennett didn't click on various things that were writing his vicinity. That would have alerted him to this falsehood. And the trial after being delayed because Sarah Palin herself got the rona started earlier this month, and James Bennett himself takes the stand at trial, right? What was his testimony like? You know, it was many hours. I found it kind of riveting, I think that he was tremendously measured, tremendously responsible and tremendously contrite. I mean, he said, you know, this was my mistake. I own it. One of the lawyers asked him, did you send the editorial back to Elizabeth Williams and after you finished your revisions? And he said, yes. And I think he sensed that answering the question might shift blame onto Elizabeth because maybe she didn't review it enough after he finished his edits. And he was like, I just want to be clear on something here. This was my fault. But it is true that after he put these edits in the story that his other colleagues did not really scrutinize those edits. One of the dynamics there is that James Bennett was a revered editor. He was the top editor here. It was kind of a forceful editor. And I don't think that people were inclined necessarily the challenge his edits, the way they would be inclined to challenge someone lower down on the organizational hierarchy if you understand what I'm saying. Sure. Was Sarah Palin in the room for all of this? Sarah Palin was in the room I believe every day for the trial. Yeah. And she eventually takes the stand too. She eventually take the.
"new york times" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Senator John McCain and more recently she wrapped baby got back on The Masked Singer in costume as some kind of like Technicolor teddy bear. Tell the shake it. Shake it. Shake your healthy butt. Baby got back. A lot of people like to credit Sarah Palin as being some kind of pre trumpy Trump. They share a lot of ticks, including a real, love hate thing with the media. Social media and activists like both your scene today. They help render the lame stream media powerless and the people then are empowered. They can do their own homework. And now she is suing the mainstream media for libel, she's saying the mainstream media made stuff up about her and not just any mainstream media Sarah Palin is going after The New York Times. Trials of the sort almost never make it to a jury. Eric wemple has been covering the trial for The Washington Post. This is a trial that involves the most storied landmark media protection in American history. It's the 1964 actual malice test, which requires a public figure like Palin to prove a hell of a lot if they're going to prevail in a lawsuit against any media organization. So this is an enormous enormous case in the sense that we don't often see this standard tested before a jury. And if she wins, what kind of precedent could that set? If Palin were to win this case, I think it would probably encourage a lot of public figures, public officials, celebrities to come forth with suits, perhaps, because, you know, if she can do it, they can do it. I think if she loses, there is a chance for significant ramifications as well. And that is that they could possibly appeal the case and try to overturn or upend actual malice. That's something that the lawyers for Palin have signaled that they might do if they lose the case. Before digging into this actual malice test, we figured we should dial it back to the beginning of the story with Palin and the NYT. This story begins on June 14th, 2017. That was the day that James hodgkinson, who was a leftist Trump hater. Open fired on a baseball field in Alexandria where a number of Republican lawmakers were practicing for an upcoming baseball game. And all out gun battle as Capitol Hill police and Alexandria officers engaged a lone gunman among the first to be hit, Republican whip, Steve scalise. It was the second attack on a congressional lawmaker in about 6 years, because in 2011, Jared Lee loughner attacked a bunch of people in the Tucson parking lot where Gabby Giffords then congressional represented was holding an event. Witnesses are reporting that they heard 15 to 20 gunshots and an event being held outside that supermarket, of course we do not know if any of the emotions that might have flooded over from the political midterms took any sort of play in this event. We do know that that race was a very hotly contested race. She won.
"new york times" Discussed on On The Media
"Inc for denying them access to Amazon's smile where organizations can collect donations from sales, because of that hate group designation. SPLC in Amazon as the district court to dismiss the case on the grounds that coral ridge ministries hadn't alleged enough facts to show that SPLC acted with actual malice as required by New York Times be Sullivan. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The dismissal was affirmed by a unanimous panel of the 11th circuit Court of Appeals and will get to that in a moment. But why is this coming up now? Well, having failed to prove its case in the lower courts, the ministry is now asking the Supreme Court to step in and change the rules. Specifically, they're asking the court to overrule nearly 60 years worth of president built on New York Times be Sullivan and to do away with the actual malice standard entirely. Of course, people and organizations filed petitions asking the high court to review lower court decisions every day, and very few of them are granted, but what makes this case worth paying attention to is that this week we got a small sign that at least some of the justices may be interested in granting the case when the court requested that SPLC and Amazon submit briefs explaining why the court shouldn't take it. Court watchers don't know for sure who issued the CFR. It only takes one justice to do it, but the names of clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have both been floated. They both dissented from the court's declining to hear a similar petition this past July. And justice Thomas has long been vocal about his opposition to Sullivan. It remains unclear if these two can convince two more of their colleagues to hear the case as four justices are necessary to grant a review. Since it seems that this crucial piece of case law might be on the chopping block, we thought it would be a perfect time to revisit an interview we aired first in 2014 about the history of Sullivan. The case was heard just months before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Though the First Amendment had already been around for nearly 200 years, it was narrowly focused. News outlets could be shuddered if sued by public officials over minor inaccuracies. The stakes were thus very high in New York Times be Sullivan. This was a story about the civil rights movement. It was a story about The New York Times covering the civil rights movement. And it was the story of local officials in this case in Alabama, trying to use state libel laws to essentially chill the press. Andrew Cohen is a fellow at the Brennan center for justice and senior editor at the Marshall project. To force reporters, either not to cover stories in the state or to cover civil rights stories in a way that was not true and more favorable to a local officials than it was to the civil rights movement. It begins as you know it in your piece in March of 1960 and it wasn't about coverage. It was about a political ad that appeared in The New York Times. Broadly criticizing southern officials for their aggressive response to civil rights protests. Right. It's a full page ad, which essentially decries the actions of local officials in Alabama. It was signed by Martin Luther King. It was signed by Harry Belafonte and other notable civil rights leaders. The New York Times accepted the ad, and it turned out that there were certain minor inaccuracies in the text of the full page ad. Like what? Well, there was one sentence about the number of times that Martin Luther King had been arrested. The figure was off by two. That's the kind of stuff that was cited by the public safety commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, a man named Sullivan, who, although he was not identified in the ad, said that the times had liable him by publishing false material about him. And the only protection against libel at the time was it had to be true. And in this case, because there were a couple of minor inaccuracies, the times couldn't argue that. That's exactly right. At the time, the First Amendment and libel laws were essentially separate. No court had really firmly linked the two in the context of public officials. So you had this First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law abridging free speech and of the press. And then you had these libel laws, which were essentially doing just that. How did Sullivan argue for defamation if he wasn't even mentioned? So what he was able to do in Alabama in the state courts, which, of course, were very favorable to him, is to say the mere mention of the police, the word police, linked him in the minds of readers. And that was one of the main contentions that The New York Times asserted as the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court that creating a libel liability in the context where you don't identify the person specifically who is liable would generally preclude any criticism of any government action anywhere by any person working within that government. So the Alabama state court decided in favor of Sullivan and then the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the decision. Let me play you some C-SPAN tape from 1991 of the late great Tony Lewis, who had covered the case for the times. Mister Sullivan asked for $500,000 in damages and a white jury all white jury awarded him every penny of the 500,000. And others sued over the ad, including the governor of Alabama, totaled some demanded $3 million and it was quite clear that if it were up to the Alabama juries, breed be $3 million in the whole of paper. And The New York Times could not afford that kind of money then it was a barely profitable newspaper. It wasn't just intimidating to The New York Times. It was an offensive weapon, if you will, by southern politicians in southern officials to try to financially freeze out the reporting that was occurring in the south at that time. There had been circumstances where reporters were basically not sent on assignments in the south because of the fear of these sorts of libel lawsuits. Had this ruling stood, coverage of the civil rights movement going forward would have been far, far less aggressive, and of course that may have made a difference in the way that public perceptions were altered as a result of that coverage. So the Supreme Court took the case, heard arguments that you call more intense and passionate than most. We have some tape of Herbert Wexler, who.
"new york times" Discussed on Feminist Utopia
"The old grey lady also known as the old grey karen in my house. So i've never really believed that the new york times was a bastion of liberal thought. I'm to open with that. It's always been status quo in my time that i've been reading at the thirty so years i've been reading it. It has never been pro progressive. It has never been anti-capitalist. It has never been anti corporate or anti-racism or anti-racism. Oh my gosh. They go way back being stupid. Not only racism but anti-semitism as well or is that racism. Do you consider antisemitism racism Okay i think you can classify that. I think a lot of black activists would take umbrage at that and i understand why but then i've also had to take umbrage with black antecedents is one who shall remain nameless in texas was talking about the white supremacists at charlottesville. They weren't chancing chanting. The blacks will not replace us. They were chanting. Jews will not replace us when someone referred i referred to them specifically as antisemitic. And and i'm like. I love you dude but step off on this one right. So it's i. It is a form of of racism. I think the new york times made a huge error and labeling racism as human bias. Isn't that a wave thing. It's like unicorns and butterflies. The context was they had an article. About how black business owners were more likely to get paycheck protection program loans from online lenders than from smaller banks so if they went online they were approved if they went in person not so much and the new york times asserted that human bias appeared to be. The main reason. Couldn't say the word. It's a new our word. There's so many human. By as i think that it should be correctly labelled as racism and they did get a little bit of pushback on it. But i don't think enough. Had you heard about that. No for no. It's interesting though. My husband's involved with them. Some machine learning things with that have been encoded with human bias. And so there's there's like a whole episode there about sexist and racist and such huge amounts of bicycle into.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Its op-ed pages and elsewhere is an ongoing process and that ongoing process it knowledge in its shortcomings. Admitting its errors is part of the new york times legacy and part of why it is the prevailing and powerful force in journalism that it is canopy better absolutely should it be yes does it need to get across the country. Yes but the new york times has not fundamentally lost. its way fundamentally. It has the biggest broadest embrace of journalism of any news organization in america. Thank you. Frank says no and here to urge for the resolution making his closing statement in support of the language that the new york times has lost. Its way yasha among yasha. Let me tell you about emily. One zao. I'm is young chinese immigrant to the united states who dreamed of copying and will and one day she wanted pitch contest from an agent with an amazing story That secure a free book deals was incredibly excited. She said i'm going to be a public over on her social media. The book was a fantasy novel set in the future and spied pop the actual systems of indentured servitude across asia today while before the book was published those social media pilot against view. Good to likely didn't have access to the full book claimed that it was a offensive because a chinese woman should not be allowed to talk about. Slave is not what the book was. In fact doing what the new york times to it habits in attica code why offer posted debut after pre publications accusations of racist if you own you think that about amity wenzel was the article in the newspaper of record in the united state. You would come away with an unfettered session that she is racist now avenue staple make missteps. The business instance. It comes from an attempt to traumatize more clarity over the of to the it is part of a wider phenomenon of the new york. Times going after its whole base of vitas Turning itself into vice like the guardian rather than the thing that we need more desperately in the united states which newspaper of record that objectively reports on. What's going on with the world fearless. He uncovers when people do that. Something can serve as a basis of the Will of life. Unfortunately the new york times is choosing to abandon that mission that is why fia despite my laughable new times but it is in fact using its way i urge you to the four and give us a monk in our final speaker and final word comes from virginia heffernan she arguing against the resolution. Virginia the screen is yours. Thanks very much. For very scintillating conversation. I can't tell what my opponents mean by. Its way i've been trying and trying to understand. I see a little bit. The body is making the case that it's lost the way that there is a particular set of politics that she'd like to see represented on the op-ed page and that way has been lost and in fact never maintained by the new york times. And and yasha. I think has defined. Its way as a kind of objectivity that is absolutely that is somehow absolutely free in the eye of god from any kind of bias. Now examples though. He is cited as bias. He told just now. The story of a of a young chinese novelist and said that amid accusations of racism. She lost her book contract. And this is how the new york times covered that imme- accusations of racism. She lost her book contract. I in in no place in that headline does it say. This woman is a racist. We don't know the impressions that readers came away with. We just know yasha monk and the new york times. Tell the story of this publishing raucous in exactly the same way. So i can't tell from these arguments whether the times is pandering to the hoy ploy with heightened emotional coverage of trump to sell ads by the way the primary purpose of all newspapers from time immemorial. I can't tell if they're paneling pandering to the boy or ignoring the views of the pulawy in the favor of hash fringe ideologies of the liberal elites. I think the way of the new york times and again the way of the new york times not our way. Not the way of the of the wall street journal or fox news or some idealized newspaper but but it's way has absolutely not been lost. This from the beginning has been the times's mandate to sell ads to tell the truth and to make it understandable to readers and on every single page of the paper that tries to do this and every single digital artifacts that the times produces base is its aim to seek to tell the truth and to help readers understand the world to seek and to help and in these ways the times has not only not lost its way it is continued to forge away for the future of journalism. You must vote no on this resolution. Thank you much virginia heffernan. I includes round. Three and that concludes this until june squared. Us debate that means the competition is over all right it is now time for our second vote and remember. It's the side that changes the most minds between the first and the second vote that has declared our winner. We're going to do it the same way as before i go back to i q two. Us dot org. You're going to have the same choices. On what the resolution says you're forward you're against it. You're undecided also as i mentioned earlier. We're going to be keeping this vote open for seven days and inviting the general public also to watch and vote at the end of the seven days we will announce the winner on our website. Iq.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Now here's the thing. The data science team is very clear. They don't tell journalists which write about they will say right about this. Create this emotion. They need to because the same thing that makes that advertise are want their ad appear next to an article that makes somebody feel extremely angry is the same thing that is motivating journalists to write in that way because they also want their stories to go viral on twitter they want them to go viral on social and they know that the way you do that is by writing about certain topics in in a certain way. What i'm arguing is that we have a lot of times has lost a countervailing force. Everyone is pulling in the same direction business advertisers and journalists and it's away from journalistic value and it's towards engagement and it truly has lost. Its way thank you about younger sargon. Our next speaker. Franks says no will be making his closing argument in opposition to the resolution that the new york times has lost. Its way frank. I come out of cable television. And for years on when i was a white house correspondent when i was a bureau chief of one of the first places i looked each day was the new york times. It still is. What story have they broken. What sources talk to them. What is happening in. What can they report out of washington or other places where washington's imprint politics can be felt the difference with cable television. However if we have this debate again. John maybe we can have it about has cable news lost its way is if you watch television and you watch cable. It's one story at a time. it's one showed a time and the harping on donald trump for and against on various networks has consumed the cable. Airwaves look at the new york times over the last ten years or so the pulitzer prizes. They have won the topics that they have embraced. Foodsafety distracted driving abuse of power in russia. The lives of women and girls in afghanistan business practices of apple and big technology in america. The investigation of donald trump's finances and his taxes predatory lending corona virus coverage. All of these have won. Pulitzer prizes also suffers from hubris. Partly because of all the pulitzer prizes. They win but they argue. Is that the depth and breadth of reporting that the new york times does albeit with imperfections and need to address imbalances in.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Election they have fired. The guy who they had hired to bring the other side. Frank frank tell us why did they not run anything barkat on their editorial team. Okay worst theory about it. Because i'm saying it's because they've lost their way so why it's not because we all agreed it's an it's the op. Ed page they did not fail to cover voters who were going to vote for donald trump on the news pages but i wanna come back to the question that john because john. It's a very important one. And i will answer as briefly can. Are there places where the new york times journalism has improved. Are there places where it's not only not lost. Its way but as i said In earlier is leading. The way i would want to one area. Just as an example there are many culture religion the arts incredible breadth and depth. You think about an institution doing this every day. But the point place that i would point to is there climate coverage and it's not just climbed they've they created a climate desk. They are using data and science in multimedia presentations all the time but they're not just coming climate from the perspective of it's hotter and drier plenty of those stories too but also what's happening in industry has industry changing what's happening with electric car vehicles. What's happening to our agriculture. How to farmers see their future growing the food that we need to grow a broad and deep embrace of a topic and by the way you can sign up for a newsletter and get their climate coverage broad right to as well as seeing it imprint. If you still reprint or digitally. So i think there are places where the journalism has continued to improve in advance and by. It's not because of the rule the mob but it's in response to genuine reader interest and that's a healthy form of journalists all right. I think that's a very good characterization of where the fault line is in this argument as we conclude round. Two of this intelligence squared. Us debate and now we move onto round three round. Three is where the debaters have their last stand to try to persuade you to vote for their side of the argument. They will be making brief closing statements. Those statements will be two minutes each and speaking i to summarized her position in support of the resolution here again is unger sargon so you may not have heard of project feels. The project feels has heard about you in two thousand seventeen. The new york times is data. Science department started asking young very educated readers to rate how articles or making them feel and how much they were making them feel to make them feel angry. How angry you make them feel sad. How sad and what they found was that the more emotional reader felt while reading an article the higher they ranked that emotion. The more engaged. They were the longer they stayed on the page and crucially the more likely they were to click on the ad next to it. They took this information and what they did with it was. They created a machine learning algorithm that now predicts how articles at the new york. Times are gonna make readers feel at a sell. This prediction to advertisers in advertiser can come to the times. Now in the times will say how would you like the reader to be feeling when they encounter ad and the advertiser can then choose any choose how much they want them to be feeling again very important. So with the times data science team did was essentially monetize your emotions and it has been wildly wildly.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Bhatia i wanted to take the question to see. Just how how sweepingly you mean the statement that the new york times has lost. its way. so you've talked about the the the the infelicitous events that you've talked about particularly around american politics aditorial page cetera. But frank talked about how you know. The new york times is covering wars around the world disasters around the world. They're doing business reporting. They're doing cultural reporting are. Are you suggesting that all of this is infected. By the problem that you're talking about happening in the editorial page in the op-ed page or are you limiting your argument in or should we be thinking that you're limiting your argument at different way so as i tried to explain in my opening statement to me it seems like a business model has made the times so financially successful in all the ways that frank laid out is corrosive to journalistic values. And what we're seeing right now. Is those two things sort of coming to ahead. The problem is is that the business model precludes them from delivering the news when it contravenes what its readers wanted here and not just what his readers want to hear it but what. Its most extreme readers here because it has ceded the measure of success to digital engagement and the most extreme people are always the most engaged. That's my argument will. I just wanted to save. I trust the new york times the mall the southern away from important todd in questions in the united states reporting will be opinion so yes. I completely trust virginia. The obituary on mary. Tyler moore. Because i don't think Issue today the closer it comes to the issues that are actually driving today. Paul close it comes to issues on which recall leadership of in your times as very very strong view the less attractive to deal the new york times and that is a real concern for or worse. Festive thing but we need to use tape record but we need a newspaper will tell the truth even when it's uncomfortable but we need one institution in american life that enjoys respect from across board. I love the guardian newspaper in the united kingdom. It's a good progressive voice. As many things. I agree with that that we have the the guardian in the united states. Ready and when the newspaper of record Until the guardian or lose something very very important. Virginia i ask virginia. Quick question should the new york times have run an op. Ed by a trump voter in the lead in the six months before the election. And if they if if yes. Why do you think they did not. I'm not sure that you know the op. Ed page though. It has three conservative writers and and some of the ones that have been fired and clara have been resigned. Including barry weiss and james bennett are not themselves trump voters either but the the the the not sure that they should have given that it is center-left although center left op ed page. The wall street journal did not make the case for bernie sanders. They didn't have introduced. An you. know an op-ed writer about bernie sanders. Because that page is known to be on the right the op. Ed page as you know is quite distinct the rest of the coverage and i think we've agreed that we're talking about as yasha made clear is an inflection that he thinks determines news is reported. Not how the feds come across. And i do think that we. I've pointed out to you that that that the page has been filled with accounts of why people did vote for trump. If not making a robust argument in favor of trump. I would be hard pressed to say that there was a case for this twice. Impeached historically unpopular president but was only once impeached at the time. Maybe they could have found someone we're hearing from but Yasha your partner has argued that he doesn't think there is a good case. The trump should it be given a second term and that the new york times had no obligation to publish one. You i would. I would take your question. I would agree with you. I would say yes absolutely. The new york times should have found somebody in the universe. They're they're there who could of made a case. For why trump y disruptor why someone who was so sacrilegious to american politics had appealed so many so frank. What does it say to you in terms of the argument were having that the paper did not mistake. Well yes it was a mistake but did it lose its way. What a dean by come back the executive editor say later what they're then editor of opinion. Say we need more and that was the thousand the second election. That was okay. They said that after the first election after the second.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"The most brilliant journalists of color from dot that same class and so there's no ideological diversity and they don't even reflect the minority communities. They come from. This is my point right when you when you you say that this kind of like. Whoa kness is the result of having a diverse workforce. It is not because they are not reflecting the communities that they come from eighty one percent of black people oppose defunding police right but you will not see that opposition in the new york times owner. Bring in your show josh go. Why does this matter by the way you might be able to find the police. That's fine why is it important About in the new york times because y- of the new york times lose touch with reality when the done seat represented ghost of appoint about diversity that yesterday times is a diverse staff of people from different if misty's who went to harvard university since that he's a knocked representative off. The valley does us city in. Which is not kate. I think i was one of the voices of resistance. I am very proud to have warned about the dangers of donald trump and a four-time populism ron world earlier than most but in use paper needs to hold on facts. The new york times. It was the only news outlet to take seriously the sexual abuse charges the sexual assault rape charges levelled by one terror against joe biden You know the biden campaign was appalled. They walked through every part of these charges which turned out to be false now. A lot of writers on the left had already said they seemed false on their face and certainly they could be away would have been an obstacle to buy the presidency. But the new york times did not primarily she did not dismiss them out of and they instead investigated them and found those charges wanting. I think we can all agree that the charges were quick to rest by the new york. Times all right. So your point made in. Virginia ticket to baccio bochu. Virginia's pushing back against your partners argument that the paper is showing a A pro-democratic bias in the way that it is covering the news not just on the bed page but you can jump into this conversation. We're be like now in terms of trump and biden. I just don't believe that the two of you think biden is getting the same treatment from the near times. That trump did. I just don't believe that you actually think that. I don't think anybody who can read could possibly think that and have a little. Let me just clarify. Do think that trump and biden journalistically merit the same coverage or the same kind of coverage. I think that question is a partisan question. I mean that that is exactly the What we're getting at here so so so so. Donald trump of course was outrageous but that outrageousness was in a very symbiotic relationship with the news media. That was covering him was getting rich off of covering his outrageousness. Now the new york times in twenty seventeen printed trump's name ninety thousand times which means that it appeared the equivalent of every two hundred fifty words. Okay that's like four times per article and you can compare how many times president obama's name appeared. Maybe are thinking. Oh well that's just normal for president. We know how many times president obama's name appeared in his second year in office and it was forty thousand times. Okay so i don't understand your argument. Is that the omnipresence of trump's name and coverage of trump was the paper feeding its audience. Negative coverage of trump wanted. To hear is for financial reasons is out what your argument is doing. Exactly what i said about the new dna of the times where does is success measure. It is measured in terms of engagement and there is nothing that gets the heartbeat of liberal elites going like the word trump bucket. If i man. I think it's very important to recognize. John got to this in his question. Donald trump was not just another president. He came to washington intending to be a disruptor. He was an anti 'institutionalised. He attacked not just as a political rivals but his political allies. If they didn't toe the line much of what he was doing and we have seen this in very thoughtful writing from people who are inside the administration working for him was a challenge to democracy itself. Let us just say to. John's question covering donald trump was not like covering any other president. He was unlike any president. We have had in this country's yasha your jonathan excellent question which is weather. Joe biden maritza seem kind of coverage on slump. What would say is that. They should be covered by the same standards. And if you play the same standards to july donald trump and in my opinion will come up with many more critical stories about donald trump and joe biden and that is absolutely fine. Bad is what journalism is the problem in. The last years has become that the media including the new york times has reflexively stocked to anything. Donald trump who has allies said even in cases where it might be that they turned out to be light. One of those times spent the toll misinformation. Disinformation which your times though thinks of itself as combating has been used was when a few people suggested visit possibility that kodak nineteen escaped a lab in china. This was labeled by the new times in fact checks and other newspapers as conspiracy. Few it was put beyond the balance of respectable At nobel prize winners in virology banda facebook youtube for discussing those few weeks for fourteen fifteen minutes. The only mentions of his furious in new york. Times was as obvious lewis. Well today i don't know what the truth is you know yet today at the white house is taking this very seriously and finally osama mainstream media is taking it seriously as well but there plenty of times. Ufo's were considered far and wide to be a preoccupation of crazy people. Now they're taken seriously by the guards so these things evolve in the new york times ever since you know people on the center left center right. Started to say oh. We've decided that the loudly rapidly hypothesis is ban. So that's the whole reason that we have to talk about it and use it as an opportunity to worry that liberals band speech people have talked about the lab theory to death. And as far as i know it's being investigated on the investigation into being closely watched by the new york giants. You jump in. Frank showed the the observation. You made Also carry something that goes way beyond the new york times but unfortunately so many of things that the former president donald trump said route the coveted crisis. It's ho- sore it's Gonna mirror miraculously disappear or hydroxy. Chloroquine will cure or whatever it is proved to be fundamentally incorrect if not outright fabrications the president's credibility sunk to a level that we've not seen before and whether it's the new york times or any place else they had to take that into consideration in reporting whatever he said the lab league theory which i don't think was banned but was viewed skeptically and covered in ways that the by all news organizations most anyway very carefully and reflected that credibility problem and it reflected the flood of disinformation that we now confront so. I think it's wrong to say that the new york times by itself and some egregious degree banned the.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Nor vpn dot com slash intelligence. Welcome back to intelligence squared us. I'm your host john donvan. Let's return to our discussion. Thank you for that wrap up. Frank says no. You've now heard the first opening remarks. Then let's move onto the screen next arguing for the resolution of the new york. Times has lost its way among yasha screen is yours. Thanks so much. I'm really looking forward to this debate. And a couple of important things in which we agree. We all agree the new york times as one of the most important institutions in the united states. We all want the new york times to succeed. We also all agree. That new york times is not donald. Trump would put it the failing new of times. The idea that the paper is in financial trouble. Ovitz about to go bankrupt. Fed is about to fail in. That kind of way is really raw. My interest in this between need a newspaper of record. She's luffing your times It's we need an institution. Envy nited states that people from different hats of a political spectrum can look to recognize even if it is beautiful often that it represents the truth that it represents reality in a way that vein can trust and the thing. I'm worried about a central three main changes times implemented over the last year's detract from its standing as the newspaper of record. The i is a very clear narrowing opinion envy up and you didn't have to take my impression as read on that. You can take what that columnists within the new york. Times are saying when he talked Multiple figures within at world f told me over the last years that even quite uncontroversial criticisms of progressive orthodoxy chand by the editors assad things that you simply cannot same time even if ninety percent of a population in america might agree with them. One example of this is very hard within the new york times. Criticize the idea of defending the police and yet we have seen just now in the mail race in new york city that the top candidates chosen by people of color in a progressive city in the united states. Very much in disagreement with that. Slow the second thing i worry about. Is that this is not on just about your opinion pages. It is also a bad news coverage yet increasing seeing an attempt to get away from the old form of the tippety which could be devolve into two ciders abba. Climate change should get scientists who believes in climate change. One denies it. Good when visit consensus. Which would be reflected in the pages of terms the new moral clarity as journalists. Hold it often goes in the opposite direction. The news pages of coming away of managing benard of trying to make clear a which side is right even when that side is making a mistake so the question about future of new york times is not whether it will succeed financially. I'm confident that it will. It's about the role that it's likely to play in american and as has argued at the moment in your times is running after its subscriber base tries to maximize the revenue dollars from the people who most agree with the world of new york times. It is entrusted turning into an american version of guiding stokes. Piece full the most progressive voices in the country. What we need is to preserve the road of the newspaper of record that can actually be a basis of reality for automatic. That is what your time. Losing that is wi fi but is losing. Its thank you again. Our final opening statement will be against the resolution. It comes from virginia heffernan. Virginia your moment. So i started writing for the new york times almost exactly twenty years ago and i was on staff for eight of those years. i should say about the liberal elite according to pew center last year the numbers are very different from what baccio adjust represented to us thirty eight percent of the times readers earn more than seventy five thousand dollars a year but twenty five percent earn between thirty and seventy five thousand dollars and twenty six percent have a household income under thirty thousand dollars in the midst of this debate. I wanna tell you about. Just one article. The obituary of mary. Tyler moore not exactly world's historical piece in two thousand six when moore was still alive..
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Hard way that if they ran beds that their own colleagues disapproved of those colleagues take to twitter very publicly denounce them and their bosses at the near times. Would listen to that. Twitter bob again and again. We have seen the times as leadership caving to social media. Mobs and what i want to argue. Is that. This is not a glitch in a hallowed institution. This is actually a feature a nana bug of the times is current iteration of its current. Dna now this new iteration began in two thousand fourteen. When the the now publisher ag salzburger was tasked with helping the times of all into a digital first publication and he came up with the times ovation report and that report was leaked to the media. So we know it's in it and he found that there were a number of things. The times was not doing well enough the first thing. He blamed the wall separating. The business side of journalism audience development from the newsreel. Eiji felt that the the task of growing the audience fell squarely on the newsroom. And the second thing was he felt underwhelmed by the degree to which times reporters where selling their stories or promoting themselves or really becoming social media. Influencers leadership must identify rising digital stars. And ask them how the times can do better. That's a quote from the time ovation report. So this actually reflected a larger shift towards measuring success in terms of engagement online. And of course what that means is you're allowing the most extreme readers to determine what success looks like because the most engaged readers are always the most extreme ones the new dna of the near times explicitly called for seating moral journalistic authority to the worst place on the planet. Which is the internet and the worst place on the internet. Which is twitter now. Ag was right that this was good business. Times is making a lot of money pursuing this but it is bad journalism now. I think that my colleagues on the other side arguing against the proposal are gonna argue that. This was a democratizing force. This was the new york times allowing the readers the masses to speak back to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The median income of a new york times reader is one hundred ninety one thousand dollars. The new york times always was and remains a reflection of ruling class in worms. Now the ruling class does like good journalism about its enemies. But that's all you're ever gonna find at the new york times which has really lost. Its way very much about younger sergeant. Our next speaker will be arguing against the resolution against the idea that the new york times has lost. Its way here is. Frank says no frank. The screen is yours. Thank you very much. And i look forward to the debate in the conversation here. Let me say the outset. I'm not gonna argue that. The new york times is perfect. I'm not gonna argue that. The new york times hasn't made missteps misjudgements errors and that hasn't got things that he can improve. I don't think anybody looks at any news organization and doesn't bring their point of view their worldview to that experience but i do think we need to be first and foremost precise and in considering what this resolution is all about that. The new york times has lost. Its way that somehow fundamentally forgotten how to do. Journalism is doing journalism anymore. Losing its way is not about getting better. Losing its ways being fundamentally a disoriented and in the wrong place. The new york times must navigate several things and these are the things we need to keep in mind as we define whether it has lost. Its way i it's journalism is it good is it fair is it inclusive is a professional is accountable when it is right wrong and needs adjusting the storytelling is that storytelling creative bold imaginative. Does it make use of the various platforms. The technologies to inform engage news consumers and finally the business model can generate the revenue needed to maintain seventeen hundred journalists around the world on a daily basis. And all the support system that's needed. I the journalists every day. The new york times still does despite what you just heard. Some of the most remarkable journalism in the world breaking news coverage of the assassination of haiti's president within the first twenty four hours fifteen separate stories from reporting on what happened so far as it is known to the implications on the street in the politics. Secular peace stutters in israel Another headline diamond rush in south africa. Another red cradles nurtured china's next generation of communist leaders a breathtaking reach around the planet and coverage from across the country detailed coverage of the collapse of the condo in surf site a remarkable coverage of heat drought wildfires What to know about the latest corona virus and the delta variant arts culture science. These are areas that most news organisations. Don't even touch anymore. And yet the new york times does it in detail and depth on a daily basis from inc. Mommy's linking tattoo artists with their ancestors to The last ice area in the arctic which may be very vulnerable to rapid.
"new york times" Discussed on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates
"Partner virginia heffernan a journalist and cultural critic since two thousand fifteen. She's been a columnist at the la times and cultural columnist at wired. Okay let's get started. I want to say hi to frank and yasha and baccio and virginia. Thanks all four of you so much for joining us from your various points around the globe. Thanks for jonky so our resolution again is the new york times has lost. Its way we're going to go in three rounds. We're going to start with around one. Which is comprised of opening statements from each debater and turn. Those statements will be four minutes each once again. Our motion is the new york. Times has lost. Its way and i up to argue in support of the motion bhatia. The screen is all yours. So i wanna start with something that i think we can all agree about. I think that all of us here all of you watching at home can agree that the new york times does still sometimes produce excellent excellent journalism. I think we can also all agree that the new york times is by no means failing. It is a huge digital success story. But i think we can also all agree or at least i hope we can also all agree that there have been a number of missteps of late that really contravene the highest standards of journalism and are really unseemly for a paper that thinks of itself as the paper of record for example in the league to the twenty twenty election. The near times did not run a single op. Ed by a trump supporter. Not one in the six months leading up to the election at the near time itself told us day in and day out was the most important election of our lifetimes. It essentially d platform seventy five million americans when its job was to explain to us why they were voting. The way they did now this was a huge journalistic failure but even worse was why this happened. It happened because the new york times op-ed editors had learned the.
"new york times" Discussed on The mindbodygreen Podcast
"He's the author of four consecutive new york times bestsellers and beginning in nineteen. Ninety eight appeared. More than thirty times on the oprah winfrey show his book the seat of the soul which is one of my all time. Favorite books fundamentally changed my view on relationships. When i first read it over twenty years ago it is an unbelievable honor to have him on the show today to discuss his latest masroor book titled universal human gary. Welcome jason. it is such an honor to have you here. The seat of the soul had a profound impact on me years and years ago when you first wrote that one of my all time favorites and so excited to see your latest and greatest. Basri universal human. So welcome so there's are so many great quotes you have passages. If you will from the book. I'm gonna start with one early on which struck me where you say quote the world is macro. You're the micro. If we want to change the world we need to change ourself and quote so amen your patient in the choir believe in empowerment. I believe in accountability. How do we start the process. And how do we prioritize process food really wanna make change begins with intention. Everything begins with intention and then it requires developing awareness self awareness because the bare bones of self transformation are the same no matter how you approach it or how you it in order to change something in yourself. You've got to become aware of what it is. You wanna change without that. You can't change but then when you become aware of it you have to decide to change it and those two things together change your life and has nothing really else. The does sometimes transformation comes through. Grace comes through. A disease comes through trauma. They're all blessings. Different ways is different. Ways of saying blessings. But if you're like me you're you're not an instant learner. Transformation authentic empowerment is incremental and each increment is a choice and each choice is choice of intention. And by the way. I'd i'd like to share with our listeners that i really appreciate being here with you jason being here with you all of the fellow students in air school who are listening to us. But i don't expect you to believe anything that i'm saying just because i say it in fact. I suggest that you not do that with anyone that you not ever believe anything that anyone says. Just because they have a television show. They've written a book or have a platform. Try it on for yourself. If you resonate with anything that i say experiment with it and see what it produces in your life and the producer something that is constructive experiments more and if it doesn't throw it away. Don't try to wear shoe pinches. So what i'm offering a window through which i've come to see life and i hope that is helpful to you as it has been to me so from that perspective and with that authority. I'm speaking from my experience. That i say that our evolution now requires different things that he did just one generation ago. We used to be a species. There was limited to the five senses and evolve by surviving and survived by manipulating and controlling. We survived because our understanding and experience of power was the ability to manipulate in control. Now everything has changed. We are becoming a multi sensory species. Our perceptual capability has expanded is expanded beyond the limitations of the five senses in this changes. Everything changes our understanding our experiences of ourselves the world the universe and everything you can think of community relationship power in fact speaking of power the new understanding and experience of power is alignment of your.
"new york times" Discussed on Channel 33
"Was a reporting fellow for the times previously of and i don't know if that was a collaborative effort between the two of them or not But yeah certainly a fun. One would ask michael about this off the air he goes. I don't know we had multiple sea nick stories that year. I really appreciate coming from. The one about the grannies who were see snakes got the different one that there were two seasons are a fantastic. Grandma's was was the other one about the other the grandmas that the the researchers sent out into the coral reefs to look for c. And they said that they were easier to work with than than graduate students. Which i thought was kind of funny. Lily talk about the way that the offices changed in desert of corona virus. Era that we're all all zoom in slack in anything else out. This is what we miss. We miss being in person with co workers to talk about all the different seasonings stories. That have come across our desk here these areas. This is the most fun of that. Is liz overhearing. Be people talk about work in over a year. Thank you guys so much for coming on doing this. You how you have a. I know that you said michael early on that you the first person to use the more a headline formulation in when discussing heels. But you know. Michael jordan didn't invent the slam dunk. You just perfect it you know and you guys have a level of aesthetic artistic perfection here that i think you should be really proud. Thank you so much. stay tuned. we hope we have some more More similar fun for everyone You know who does the the trial by its section of the new york times or or science and health status general watching toilets relevance. I was reading the comments section on the article which is generally a bad thing to do but in this case it was really lovely but i did see that someone suggested that we should win a nobel peace prize which i'm open to. Yeah you know. i'll. I'll be happy to share that prize money with you. The pulitzer was just the start really nobel prize. We're going for we we want. We want the p. Got sabrina michael. Thank you so much. Thank you take our inky. Our david shoemaker guesses these strained pun headline yeah. Mondays headline about a the who was busted after posting a photo of stilton cheese was cream doesn't pay today's headline comes from the l. A. times david and it's a special occasion because i was informed this week. That steve horne. Who is a longtime editor on the l. a. times sports desk is retiring. Oh wow okay now you know how the la times sports headlines they really punny ones often make their way to twitter Many of those are the work of steve horn and in fact people around the paper when they see a particularly wonderful clever dada. Sports headline say That's a steve horne headline you. So i thought. I would do in la time. Sports headline here In honor of steve horns long and alestra his career at that paper. This is from wednesday. You remember the deondraye. Eytan jae crowder alleyoop that ended game two of the western conference finals. The suns beat clippers. Now remember remember. This is the la times the clippers hometown newspaper reporting this story. What was the la times is strained. Sun headline wow. I'm thinking immediately go to like. Don't forget to tip Forget to guard the tip. Yeah don't forget to tip Though e- been buzzer beater Last.
"new york times" Discussed on Max & Murphy on Politics
"It does welcome to max politics. This max from gotham gazette coming to you the day after primary day. Well we know some things and we don't know a lot because in part because The primaries were crowded and competitive the so much on the ballot in part because of the expansion of absentee balloting in part because of the start of the use of ranked choice voting. So there are a lot of layers to these elections There are some things we know. There's some things we don't know we're digging into both of those some of the things that we can take away from primary day in the election thus far and some of what to watch for going forward we have a great show for you today. In just a couple minutes. I'm going to be joined by mara. Gay of the new york times editorial board the times editorial board endorsed in the three big races that were on the ballot in the primary the democratic primaries for mayor city controller and manhattan district attorney and all three of the candidates that the times editorial board endorsed got a seemingly enormous boost from those endorsements of times. Detoro board will join me shortly to discuss the choices they made in those three races. How those candidates are doing and what comes next. Those candidates of course were kathryn garcia in the mayoral primary. Now she's in third place but she has far outpaced expectations in this race so far and she's one of the three candidates in the mayoral primary that have a shot to win of any kind. The favourite there of course is eric adams who has a roughly eighty thousand vote lead. Roughly nine percentage points over mile wildly. Who's a little bit ahead of kathryn garcia and those are the three candidates in the running as we wait to count absentee ballots and do the ranked choice run off in another race that the times endorsed in the democratic primary for comptroller brad lander city council member from brooklyn is surprising. Some people by outpacing city council speaker cory johnson by Also about sixty seventy thousand. Votes and nine percentage points in the controller. Primary brad lander looking like. He's in very good shape. They're going into absentees ranked choice. Run off again. These races are knock called and they won't be for weeks and then in the third race that the times editorial board weighed in on alvin brag for manhattan district attorney in the democratic primary. He is leading tally for weinstein. By seven thousand or.