9
submitted 1 week ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago

I just finished reading a book called Takeover, about the last six months before Hitler became chancellor. I wonder if someone will write a similar book about now someday.

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago
[-] Vodulas@beehaw.org 0 points 1 week ago
[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

Lol, no. If the fash win, you only get Riefenstahlic circlejerk histories.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

because the ny times makes a lot of money under trump

and lets be honest the only reason anyone cares about the nyt these days is to play wordle once a day

[-] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago

Connections nowadays..

[-] trebuchet@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

When asked why the Times doesn't see its job as trying to "stop Trump," Kahn completely missed the point and said journalism's role is to provide "impartial information" rather than becoming a "propaganda arm."

That's pretty rich when you read any of the New York Times' coverage of countries that are America's geopolitical enemies. Their articles practically read like State Department press releases.

[-] MikeImBack@disabled.social 2 points 1 week ago

@mozz which is why NYT is the enemy

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 week ago

I made some kind of noise yesterday about wanting to cancel my subscription because of this bullshit; I just followed through.

Interesting info for anyone curious: If you attempt to cancel your subscription online, it'll offer you $1/week for a full year if you stay. It's honestly a pretty good deal for their non-propaganda stories. But on the other hand, fuck 'em.

#nytimes

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 week ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryIn a recent interview with Semafor's Ben Smith, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn offered a laughable defense of the paper's coverage of the looming threat that Donald Trump poses to American democracy.

When asked why the Times doesn't see its job as trying to "stop Trump," Kahn completely missed the point and said journalism's role is to provide "impartial information" rather than becoming a "propaganda arm."

Kahn seems to have confused fair reporting with sticking your head in the sand while fascism takes root.

He was simply asking why the Times is so reluctant to offer coverage that properly conveys the severity of the threat Trump represents through smarter framing and proportional emphasis.

And Kahn's dismissal of worries over the Times giving wildly disproportionate attention to Biden's age as just demanding they "downplay" legitimate issues is "absurdly evasive."

If they don't, then perhaps democracy was never more than a quaint little fad in the Times' view – easily discarded in favor of juicier stories about Biden's age and how polite neo-Nazi are.


Saved 58% of original text.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

Shareholders and journalism do not mix. All this prevarication on the part of the Times stems directly from wanting to goose numbers sted committing journalism. And goosing is a time-honoured first step.

[-] doctortofu@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Do shareholders mix with anything? Fucking up the environment? Makes shareholders happy. Mass layoffs? Makes shareholders happy. War, cancer sticks, genocide, addictive drugs? As long as the line goes up shareholders are happy...

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 1 week ago

And the hilarious thing is that if Trump does win, I can pretty much guarantee that the New York Times and its editors will be one of the first ones to suffer. I cannot possibly imagine a universe where once project 2025 knocks out all the guardrails that would prevent him from committing all-out assault legal and otherwise on anyone who's ever displeased him over the years, he'll arrive at the NYT and pause. "You know what? They actually had some pretty positive coverage during the election. I think I'll reserve an honored place for them in the new permissible-media landscape I'm architecting."

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

It's abundantly clear that we are not going to learn from history.

The really fucking ironic point is bin Laden's stated goal was to destabilize the U.S., and boy, howdy. No need to enumerate the problems stemming from that.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10094 readers
56 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS