EXACTLY. If it had happened to a building full of wealthy people it would have been splashed all over the front page. The New York Times seems to have a permanent "Charlie Kirk" section right now. They're 'following' the story of his death the way they could be following the rise of violent fascism. It's amazing--and sickening--to see.
Kirk IS the perfect embodiment of the rise of violent fascism, with his long lists of university teachers that he asked students to refuse to even listen to. He was never about REAL, respectful debates in the first place.
The only problem is that the NYT isn't reporting the facts, when it comes to Kirk. Instead, it - totally falsely - presents him as a hero (unknown to most before he died though) and a champion of free speech.
He is the new & improved Republican Jesus. Christianity based on hate, cruelty, and money. None of that icky & uncomfortable "love" stuff, or obligation to care about other people.
What these people advocate is the exact opposite of Christianity. It’s like saying you are a pacifist who believes in dropping nukes on your enemies.
You should get John Fugelsang’s new book “Separation of Church and Hate”. It makes it clear that what the right is pushing is the opposite of what Jesus taught. It is a guide for pushing back using the actual texts of the Gospels to point out their hypocrisy whether you are a believer or not. He has also done a lot of interviews lately. Here is the one he did on the Daily Show.
It used to when Tim Russert, a devout Catholic, kept having Jerry Falwell on MTP as a spokesperson for American Christians. This was after Falwell had been hawking the vicious conspiracy video “Clinton Chronicles” on his TV show. That video accused Clinton of running a drug ring in Arkansas and having scores of people murdered. When Russert asked Falwell about it Falwell gave him the “just asking the question” answer. Despite that Russert and other mainstream media shows continued having Falwell on to speak for Christians.
Fugelsang’s book is already on the NYT best seller list. I am hoping it goes to #1. Maybe then the mainstream media will start challenging these hypocritical heretics instead of letting them continue to pervert the meaning of Christian.
Fugelsang has also done a lot of interviews about the book and has his own Substack.
I cannot swallow how shallow and gossipy the mainstream media industry has become. I now start my day with The Guardian to get the facts about what’s happening that day. I no longer trust the NYT and stopped watching network news many years ago. I’ve never seen it as bad as it is now and I’m 76.
It is SO reassuring to hear from you all that you are having the very reactions to the lack of coverage ESPECIALLY of that horrific attack BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND WITH OUR DOLLARS
The media has been shallow and gossipy for a very long time and they have done a lot of damage to our politics because of that. Remember their obsession with Obama wearing a brown suit? I will never forget how they trashed Pat Nixon as “Plastic Pat” for not being glamorous enough. Prior to that they had carped about Jackie Kennedy spending too much on her clothes while covering up the fact that her husband was constantly cheating on her.
And we should never forget just what it cost us that they preferred Bush over boring old Al Gore. The media fawned over Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. In contrast the highly respected journalist David Broder complained that Gore had talked to much about what he would do if elected that it almost put that “serious” journalist to sleep. He was writing about Gore’s acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president! I still wonder what Mr. Broder thought Gore should have talked about. That year the media also had a great time repeating the lie that Gore had claimed to have invented the internet even though they all knew it was a lie made up by Republican spinmeisters to attack Gore on his prescient support for the creation of the internet.
The Tribune, while conservative, has actually been quite good on immigration coverage, running a lot of stories about the human suffering of targeted people. I don't know why, but I applaud it.
Totally agree. The over-the-top military style attack was for show to instil terror. They could have easily showed up at 6 or 7 am by vehicle and arrested whoever needed arresting. They're ramping up to martial law.
It turns out that TWO of those detained appear to have been reportedly "gang-affiliated," which is completely unsurprising in a large apartment building in the South Shore neighborhood. There are 247 apartments in that building, so probably 500+ people had to endure this Mogadishu-style raid. And we don't even know if the two "gang-affiliated" people had anything to do with Tren de Aragua -- probably they were just connected with a homegrown street gang (if they really were). No warrants. No Miranda. No civil rights. I hope this story persists.
"Both sideism" has killed legacy journalism. For example, at what point should journalists stop reporting/platforming people who lie? I see the speaker or the House on every Sunday program every Sunday saying things that are false. I know he's the speaker of the House but what's the journalistic point of giving him a megaphone for distortions and lies? Perhaps he'd be less eager to appear if post interview he was fact-checked. In print, we don't need Trump-love quotes from spokespeople. Just paraphrase: "Trump spokesman [name] praised the president but did not answer the question regarding..." This doesn't seem hard unless your primary goal as a journalist is access.
Not reporting lies is not the solution. Reporting THAT they are lies, and proving that they are, that is what real journalism has always been all about.
Have had to stop watching CBS and ABC news because of the 'trump said...' without doing their one job of saying '... but it's not supported by facts or data.'
I believe you make some excellent points, however, you miss the mark on access. Part of the role of a journalist is to stand in for the public for events they cannot access themselves. If a journalist does not have access, how do you propose that they do their job? A first hand account always carries more weight than second or third hand.
Andy, no journalist should ever sacrifice reporting of the truth because they are worried about access. There are many ways to do the job well even if the subject refuses to participate -- research on factual history of issues, government data, court, business performance, and other public records. But don't take my word for it. Read ProPublica or Popular Information, for example. They don't pull punches to make sure they have access to the people involved in their reporting.
I’ve been a follower of Propublica s well as other investigative journalism platforms since college and I understand very well how to do the job.
You aren’t wrong about the multiple ways available to acquire information. Professional journalists use these options as a matter of course regardless of where they work.
However, if a professional journalist is not actually present to stand in for the public as their job requires, the public has to rely on hearsay. That is my point. It’s just a fact.
Access to what? A press secretary who not only lies but insults the press corps' intelligence? Who does not answer questions in any meaningful way? Who journalist can watch online in their PJs with no loss of content? The current press secretary communicated more truth by her shocked reaction after the Trump/Putin summit than she has ever communicated with her words.
Good journalists cultivate sources and not always through official means. And Trump does not exactly run a tight ship.
and what good is access if it just means parroting the party line. The White House Press Corps are just stenographers at this point. Meet the Press and Face the Nation have access to leaders but let them off the hook with no follow-up or pushback. I agree that sources can be cultivated without shilling for those who grant you "access."
Yeah, “legacy or MSM” have failed miserably, all in the name of profit, to journalistically cover Trump since 2015 bringing us to where we are now…
PBS News Hour (& NPR) journalistically pushes back on lies spewed by republican guest or Trump supporters (sometimes awkwardly but not afraid to) - that’s why not many republicans or Trump supporters accept PBS (or NPR) invitations to speak about policy or what Trump is doing or has done; both PBS & NPR leaves open the invitation for republicans to air their views (they never show up)…👍🏼
This is a great addition to a rather extended discussion I had with someone about biased media (he held onto the idea that a couple of thing I'd posted lacked the "just the facts ma'am" reporting he felt indicated bias).
So one request I have: like many people I left Twitter. I realize journalists must remain on that platform, but so many times I know content posted to Twitter is also posted to BlueSky. So -- my request is, can you post links to content from that platform rather than X? I really don't want to give X any clicks.
I'm leaving in a week for an international trip. I admit to increased nervousness over the shutdown and flight safety, especially in light of all the other issues cropping up about flying since January.
I would argue that there is no compelling reason for journalists to remain on Twitter. Large following? If you're on Bluesky, your raw numbers will be smaller but your engagement will be much greater.
There are still many people that journalists need access to for reporting purposes who aren't on Blue Sky.
I understand the need for working journalists to have access to Xitter, and I realize it's an extra step for them to find an alternate source so I don't have to mouse over a link before I click on it.
My sense is that most people are aware of who’s in power and know who to blame when things go wrong. I think they know innately that what Trump is doing with the military and ICE is wrong.
For me the Guardian seems to be the most direct in stating the obvious. Sadly, too often I need to read several graphs down in the Times and Post to find the perspective that should have been at the top.
MSM is continuing to falter in the face of the authoritarian take over. The recent purchase of CBS by Larry Ellison, the destruction (my words) of WaPo by Bezos, the rightwing owner of Politico, Axel Springer, The Murdoch Empire (WSJ, Fox), etc. all are contributing.
The framing is purposeful. The truth is ancillary to these folks. Seems like we have fully returned to the yellow journalism days of yore. Getting to a more informed public is more challenging than ever in the face of capitalistic capture. It seems as long as the "bread ad circuses" keep coming, most Americans see no problem with waltzing into Authoritarianism.
I am currently reading "The Rediscovery of America" by Ned Blackhawk. A very good book about the destruction of the Native Populations and the founding of America from the 1500's to the present.
And now Paramount, which caved to Trump and the neofascist GOP, bought The Free Press, a right-wing online "news" website. Even worse: they put Bari Weiss, who founded the Free Press, at the head of CBS.
Hello ,Margaret you asked what I am reading. I'm reading Homelands a Personal History of Europe by Timothy Garton Ash. Its a wonderful book. Both a autobiography and a history of Europe. It's fascinating.
Keep the book recommendations coming; books are necessary in times like these. I am currently reading A Line in the River by Jamal Mahjoub, and The Nine Lives of Pakistan by Declan Walsh.
The performative neutrality of the mainstream media is infuriating, but I feel at this point it is like cursing at the sun in July for DC’s sweltering temperatures. But the people we need to stop the current regime aren’t reading the NYT’s political analysis or watching CNN’s pundit panels. For this reason, though I know it will be an unpopular view here, that silly cat video was a brilliant communication idea as a social media bread crumb to bring people along to eventually view Bernie and AOC’s video when it shows up in their social media feed. D’s need to talk like real people, not sociology professors, and, for better or worse, that video is how the median American thinks, acts, and speaks now.
As for reading, I enthusiastically recommend the great Jess Walter’s latest, “So Far Gone,” which again showcases his beautiful sentences, laugh out loud wit, and superb storytelling.
For mystery fans, I recommend Louise Hegarty’s “Fair Play,” which is a genre-bending valentine to Agatha Christie novels while also providing a profound meditation on the nature of loss and grieving. It was both fun and moving.
Though unquestionably bleak, Paul Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning “Prophet Song,” about an authoritarian takeover of Ireland’s government, of all places, is a powerful work of art that shows, not tells, us how plausible it is that the thin veneer of civilization can be broken so easily in even the most civilized places like Ireland.
I gave up on TV network news years ago. Cable held my attention for a while, but MSNBC is now dead to me until Joe and Mika are fired. As for the papers, I cancelled the Washington Post months ago and keep the NYT for the puzzles and games. The Philadelphia Inquirer still does a pretty decent job, and has the must read Will Bunch. I get the rest of my news from independent media - Acosta, MeidasTouch and others.
I am the same Peter. I am heading toward canceling my NYT subscription, that I have had for 40 years. Lawrence O Donnell spoke eloquently about how and why the Times is failing their readers just the other night. Find it on YouTube.
I think we better keep the online subscription and then constantly denounce them in the comment sections.
They still do quite some investigative work that only big corporations can do and that systematically expose the GOP and Trump, showing how illegal and corrupt they are.
The main problem is the headlines and the editorial choices. Those are often extremely cynical and focus on outrage rather than highlighting the most important facts. And that's also where the bothsides-ism is at its worst.
More and more, it isn’t worth it for the book review, either, except for the very rare investigative report like its recent critique of all the holes in Amy Griffin’s “The Tell.” Why do we need all those quizzes with titles like “Let us help you find your next romance novel” when all the space and staff time they require could be used for more substantive books?
Same. And we are lucky to be in the Philly metro area, so we also subscribe to The Inquirer. I find myself reading the NYT less and less, but we keep it for national/international reporting.
I don’t have any problem with the cat video. Cats own the internet as everyone knows and it was meant to reach those who turn off the usual talking heads. Dems get accused of never trying anything and always getting it wrong when they do.
They zip tied the hands of children. Disgusting and disgraceful. The media should be talking about this every day. I guess it just isn’t as “newsworthy” as “but her emails.” They have always given Trump a wide berth and a light touch and it’s only gotten worse.
I stumbled upon “Young Jane Young” by Gabrielle Zevin. Little to do with journalism but a little to do with politics. A short, funny, delightful palate cleanser.
My local paper has gotten increasingly right-wing in their coverage, so I’ll probably pull my financial support for them soon, though I hate to lose what little local coverage we have.
1) the editor has yet to even mention abortion since Roe was overturned. When I asked him about it, he said “we’ll see, I don’t think it’ll be that big of an issue.” (groan)
2) Lately, he’s been publishing Facebook and Instagram comments as Letters to the Editor. That seems like bad practice, and several other readers have told me they’re not happy with it either.
3). my latest concern is over the paper’s coverage of vaccines. Here in NY we still have access to them, but for how long? so the local paper wrote an article about availability, and the latest recommendations from HHS. However, the article didn’t even mention that the previous vaccine advisory committee was all fired so RFK, Jr could appoint a new committee of his fellow anti-vaxxers. I pointed this out to the editor, who fired an email back to me within 10 minutes (!) saying “that information is available in many other places, we don’t need to include it in our article.” Wow!
I’ve been reading a book about public squares in cities around the world. It’s fascinating!
Are people being lied to? Absolutely. But how do you specifically know they’re being lied to? ESP? Or is it because you were told by someone who was actually present for those lies?
and if those observers are not present to ask questions and to push back against lies-which they actually do as anyone who has been present for a presser. I realize most people on this thread don’t know much about journalism much less understand and practice the craft and understand the nuances involved. And there is no blowback for that, but if you’re not listening, you’re not learning. @EUWDTB has the right of it.
Yes, all other things being equal the press should be present when politicians lie. But if the condition for their access is that they don’t push back then access isn’t worth it. And if they are just repeating the lies without correction then that’s dereliction of duty and we should seek out sources that do push back, even if they don’t have access.
Getting most of my news from independent sources... Lincoln Square, Zeteo, Meidas. Good to see Dems holding the line. Disappointing that the message getting through is healthcare only and mostly ACA with minor mention of Medicaid. The Bernie/AOC vid was great as always but even there was only a quick inclusion of Medicaid.
Dem messaging needs to expand to combating tyranny. The country is focused on DC right now so now is the time. I think a significant reason for Trump's plummeting approval is his lawlessness and attack on our individual and collective rights. Trump's illegal tariffs are a great way to transition to lawlessness while also laying the blame for a faltering economy by clearly saying that the tariffs are relly a tax on low/moderate income Americans while billionaires get tax breaks and feed at the government trough
I am appalled at the lack of coverage of "October 2nd - Door Smashing Night," in Chicago.
This is a date that should live in infamy just like January 6th.
Even the conservative Chicago Tribune belatedly reported on it.
EXACTLY. If it had happened to a building full of wealthy people it would have been splashed all over the front page. The New York Times seems to have a permanent "Charlie Kirk" section right now. They're 'following' the story of his death the way they could be following the rise of violent fascism. It's amazing--and sickening--to see.
Kirk IS the perfect embodiment of the rise of violent fascism, with his long lists of university teachers that he asked students to refuse to even listen to. He was never about REAL, respectful debates in the first place.
The only problem is that the NYT isn't reporting the facts, when it comes to Kirk. Instead, it - totally falsely - presents him as a hero (unknown to most before he died though) and a champion of free speech.
He is the new & improved Republican Jesus. Christianity based on hate, cruelty, and money. None of that icky & uncomfortable "love" stuff, or obligation to care about other people.
What these people advocate is the exact opposite of Christianity. It’s like saying you are a pacifist who believes in dropping nukes on your enemies.
You should get John Fugelsang’s new book “Separation of Church and Hate”. It makes it clear that what the right is pushing is the opposite of what Jesus taught. It is a guide for pushing back using the actual texts of the Gospels to point out their hypocrisy whether you are a believer or not. He has also done a lot of interviews lately. Here is the one he did on the Daily Show.
https://youtu.be/tj3OcfMS4AU?si=OaRHE6fu5DO1PA1X
It used to when Tim Russert, a devout Catholic, kept having Jerry Falwell on MTP as a spokesperson for American Christians. This was after Falwell had been hawking the vicious conspiracy video “Clinton Chronicles” on his TV show. That video accused Clinton of running a drug ring in Arkansas and having scores of people murdered. When Russert asked Falwell about it Falwell gave him the “just asking the question” answer. Despite that Russert and other mainstream media shows continued having Falwell on to speak for Christians.
Fugelsang’s book is already on the NYT best seller list. I am hoping it goes to #1. Maybe then the mainstream media will start challenging these hypocritical heretics instead of letting them continue to pervert the meaning of Christian.
Fugelsang has also done a lot of interviews about the book and has his own Substack.
I cannot swallow how shallow and gossipy the mainstream media industry has become. I now start my day with The Guardian to get the facts about what’s happening that day. I no longer trust the NYT and stopped watching network news many years ago. I’ve never seen it as bad as it is now and I’m 76.
It is SO reassuring to hear from you all that you are having the very reactions to the lack of coverage ESPECIALLY of that horrific attack BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND WITH OUR DOLLARS
The media has been shallow and gossipy for a very long time and they have done a lot of damage to our politics because of that. Remember their obsession with Obama wearing a brown suit? I will never forget how they trashed Pat Nixon as “Plastic Pat” for not being glamorous enough. Prior to that they had carped about Jackie Kennedy spending too much on her clothes while covering up the fact that her husband was constantly cheating on her.
And we should never forget just what it cost us that they preferred Bush over boring old Al Gore. The media fawned over Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. In contrast the highly respected journalist David Broder complained that Gore had talked to much about what he would do if elected that it almost put that “serious” journalist to sleep. He was writing about Gore’s acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president! I still wonder what Mr. Broder thought Gore should have talked about. That year the media also had a great time repeating the lie that Gore had claimed to have invented the internet even though they all knew it was a lie made up by Republican spinmeisters to attack Gore on his prescient support for the creation of the internet.
“Going After Gore”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710?srsltid=AfmBOopHjxQIOWiq79g0wgt7lTlkFfeakgnGa_69sjrUJHhFWHp5An_V
The Tribune, while conservative, has actually been quite good on immigration coverage, running a lot of stories about the human suffering of targeted people. I don't know why, but I applaud it.
Totally agree. The over-the-top military style attack was for show to instil terror. They could have easily showed up at 6 or 7 am by vehicle and arrested whoever needed arresting. They're ramping up to martial law.
It turns out that TWO of those detained appear to have been reportedly "gang-affiliated," which is completely unsurprising in a large apartment building in the South Shore neighborhood. There are 247 apartments in that building, so probably 500+ people had to endure this Mogadishu-style raid. And we don't even know if the two "gang-affiliated" people had anything to do with Tren de Aragua -- probably they were just connected with a homegrown street gang (if they really were). No warrants. No Miranda. No civil rights. I hope this story persists.
Couldn’t agree w you more!!
"Both sideism" has killed legacy journalism. For example, at what point should journalists stop reporting/platforming people who lie? I see the speaker or the House on every Sunday program every Sunday saying things that are false. I know he's the speaker of the House but what's the journalistic point of giving him a megaphone for distortions and lies? Perhaps he'd be less eager to appear if post interview he was fact-checked. In print, we don't need Trump-love quotes from spokespeople. Just paraphrase: "Trump spokesman [name] praised the president but did not answer the question regarding..." This doesn't seem hard unless your primary goal as a journalist is access.
Not reporting lies is not the solution. Reporting THAT they are lies, and proving that they are, that is what real journalism has always been all about.
Exactly!
Why waste our time with the lies?
Have had to stop watching CBS and ABC news because of the 'trump said...' without doing their one job of saying '... but it's not supported by facts or data.'
I believe you make some excellent points, however, you miss the mark on access. Part of the role of a journalist is to stand in for the public for events they cannot access themselves. If a journalist does not have access, how do you propose that they do their job? A first hand account always carries more weight than second or third hand.
Andy, no journalist should ever sacrifice reporting of the truth because they are worried about access. There are many ways to do the job well even if the subject refuses to participate -- research on factual history of issues, government data, court, business performance, and other public records. But don't take my word for it. Read ProPublica or Popular Information, for example. They don't pull punches to make sure they have access to the people involved in their reporting.
I’ve been a follower of Propublica s well as other investigative journalism platforms since college and I understand very well how to do the job.
You aren’t wrong about the multiple ways available to acquire information. Professional journalists use these options as a matter of course regardless of where they work.
However, if a professional journalist is not actually present to stand in for the public as their job requires, the public has to rely on hearsay. That is my point. It’s just a fact.
Access to what? A press secretary who not only lies but insults the press corps' intelligence? Who does not answer questions in any meaningful way? Who journalist can watch online in their PJs with no loss of content? The current press secretary communicated more truth by her shocked reaction after the Trump/Putin summit than she has ever communicated with her words.
Good journalists cultivate sources and not always through official means. And Trump does not exactly run a tight ship.
and what good is access if it just means parroting the party line. The White House Press Corps are just stenographers at this point. Meet the Press and Face the Nation have access to leaders but let them off the hook with no follow-up or pushback. I agree that sources can be cultivated without shilling for those who grant you "access."
Yeah, “legacy or MSM” have failed miserably, all in the name of profit, to journalistically cover Trump since 2015 bringing us to where we are now…
PBS News Hour (& NPR) journalistically pushes back on lies spewed by republican guest or Trump supporters (sometimes awkwardly but not afraid to) - that’s why not many republicans or Trump supporters accept PBS (or NPR) invitations to speak about policy or what Trump is doing or has done; both PBS & NPR leaves open the invitation for republicans to air their views (they never show up)…👍🏼
This is a great addition to a rather extended discussion I had with someone about biased media (he held onto the idea that a couple of thing I'd posted lacked the "just the facts ma'am" reporting he felt indicated bias).
So one request I have: like many people I left Twitter. I realize journalists must remain on that platform, but so many times I know content posted to Twitter is also posted to BlueSky. So -- my request is, can you post links to content from that platform rather than X? I really don't want to give X any clicks.
I'm leaving in a week for an international trip. I admit to increased nervousness over the shutdown and flight safety, especially in light of all the other issues cropping up about flying since January.
I would argue that there is no compelling reason for journalists to remain on Twitter. Large following? If you're on Bluesky, your raw numbers will be smaller but your engagement will be much greater.
There are still many people that journalists need access to for reporting purposes who aren't on Blue Sky.
I understand the need for working journalists to have access to Xitter, and I realize it's an extra step for them to find an alternate source so I don't have to mouse over a link before I click on it.
My sense is that most people are aware of who’s in power and know who to blame when things go wrong. I think they know innately that what Trump is doing with the military and ICE is wrong.
For me the Guardian seems to be the most direct in stating the obvious. Sadly, too often I need to read several graphs down in the Times and Post to find the perspective that should have been at the top.
It’s simple: Democrats want to keep health care premiums cost down. Republicans was to abolish ACA subsidies&raise the cost of healthcare by a lot.
I actually think right now Elizabeth Warren has the most effective message.
Also in my opinion FoxNews “Fair&Balanced” destroyed journalism. Of course be fair, but shouldn’t journalism golden rule be: Report the Truth.
MSM is continuing to falter in the face of the authoritarian take over. The recent purchase of CBS by Larry Ellison, the destruction (my words) of WaPo by Bezos, the rightwing owner of Politico, Axel Springer, The Murdoch Empire (WSJ, Fox), etc. all are contributing.
The framing is purposeful. The truth is ancillary to these folks. Seems like we have fully returned to the yellow journalism days of yore. Getting to a more informed public is more challenging than ever in the face of capitalistic capture. It seems as long as the "bread ad circuses" keep coming, most Americans see no problem with waltzing into Authoritarianism.
I am currently reading "The Rediscovery of America" by Ned Blackhawk. A very good book about the destruction of the Native Populations and the founding of America from the 1500's to the present.
And now Paramount, which caved to Trump and the neofascist GOP, bought The Free Press, a right-wing online "news" website. Even worse: they put Bari Weiss, who founded the Free Press, at the head of CBS.
Ikr. What a freakin' joke. Bari Weiss, AYFKM?
She is a grifter's, grifter!
Hello ,Margaret you asked what I am reading. I'm reading Homelands a Personal History of Europe by Timothy Garton Ash. Its a wonderful book. Both a autobiography and a history of Europe. It's fascinating.
Keep the book recommendations coming; books are necessary in times like these. I am currently reading A Line in the River by Jamal Mahjoub, and The Nine Lives of Pakistan by Declan Walsh.
The performative neutrality of the mainstream media is infuriating, but I feel at this point it is like cursing at the sun in July for DC’s sweltering temperatures. But the people we need to stop the current regime aren’t reading the NYT’s political analysis or watching CNN’s pundit panels. For this reason, though I know it will be an unpopular view here, that silly cat video was a brilliant communication idea as a social media bread crumb to bring people along to eventually view Bernie and AOC’s video when it shows up in their social media feed. D’s need to talk like real people, not sociology professors, and, for better or worse, that video is how the median American thinks, acts, and speaks now.
As for reading, I enthusiastically recommend the great Jess Walter’s latest, “So Far Gone,” which again showcases his beautiful sentences, laugh out loud wit, and superb storytelling.
For mystery fans, I recommend Louise Hegarty’s “Fair Play,” which is a genre-bending valentine to Agatha Christie novels while also providing a profound meditation on the nature of loss and grieving. It was both fun and moving.
Though unquestionably bleak, Paul Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning “Prophet Song,” about an authoritarian takeover of Ireland’s government, of all places, is a powerful work of art that shows, not tells, us how plausible it is that the thin veneer of civilization can be broken so easily in even the most civilized places like Ireland.
I gave up on TV network news years ago. Cable held my attention for a while, but MSNBC is now dead to me until Joe and Mika are fired. As for the papers, I cancelled the Washington Post months ago and keep the NYT for the puzzles and games. The Philadelphia Inquirer still does a pretty decent job, and has the must read Will Bunch. I get the rest of my news from independent media - Acosta, MeidasTouch and others.
I am the same Peter. I am heading toward canceling my NYT subscription, that I have had for 40 years. Lawrence O Donnell spoke eloquently about how and why the Times is failing their readers just the other night. Find it on YouTube.
Times isn’t worth it just for the book review.
I think we better keep the online subscription and then constantly denounce them in the comment sections.
They still do quite some investigative work that only big corporations can do and that systematically expose the GOP and Trump, showing how illegal and corrupt they are.
The main problem is the headlines and the editorial choices. Those are often extremely cynical and focus on outrage rather than highlighting the most important facts. And that's also where the bothsides-ism is at its worst.
More and more, it isn’t worth it for the book review, either, except for the very rare investigative report like its recent critique of all the holes in Amy Griffin’s “The Tell.” Why do we need all those quizzes with titles like “Let us help you find your next romance novel” when all the space and staff time they require could be used for more substantive books?
Can you still subscribe to the NYT Review of Books separately? Been a while since I checked.
No. Are you thinking of the NY Review of books?
Same. And we are lucky to be in the Philly metro area, so we also subscribe to The Inquirer. I find myself reading the NYT less and less, but we keep it for national/international reporting.
Ms. Sullivan, You referenced the video with the cats. Have you seen this one? I think it’s very good…
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPUgpM5jr2t/?igsh=bXMxeXUwcXV2bjZ4
Thank you for your work. I read it every week! Grateful.
SOS, Connecticut
I don’t have any problem with the cat video. Cats own the internet as everyone knows and it was meant to reach those who turn off the usual talking heads. Dems get accused of never trying anything and always getting it wrong when they do.
They zip tied the hands of children. Disgusting and disgraceful. The media should be talking about this every day. I guess it just isn’t as “newsworthy” as “but her emails.” They have always given Trump a wide berth and a light touch and it’s only gotten worse.
Thanks for the book recommendations!
The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks retells the story of King David.
I stumbled upon “Young Jane Young” by Gabrielle Zevin. Little to do with journalism but a little to do with politics. A short, funny, delightful palate cleanser.
You might also wish to read Elsewhere by the same author.
My local paper has gotten increasingly right-wing in their coverage, so I’ll probably pull my financial support for them soon, though I hate to lose what little local coverage we have.
1) the editor has yet to even mention abortion since Roe was overturned. When I asked him about it, he said “we’ll see, I don’t think it’ll be that big of an issue.” (groan)
2) Lately, he’s been publishing Facebook and Instagram comments as Letters to the Editor. That seems like bad practice, and several other readers have told me they’re not happy with it either.
3). my latest concern is over the paper’s coverage of vaccines. Here in NY we still have access to them, but for how long? so the local paper wrote an article about availability, and the latest recommendations from HHS. However, the article didn’t even mention that the previous vaccine advisory committee was all fired so RFK, Jr could appoint a new committee of his fellow anti-vaxxers. I pointed this out to the editor, who fired an email back to me within 10 minutes (!) saying “that information is available in many other places, we don’t need to include it in our article.” Wow!
I’ve been reading a book about public squares in cities around the world. It’s fascinating!
I think you’re missing the point.
Are people being lied to? Absolutely. But how do you specifically know they’re being lied to? ESP? Or is it because you were told by someone who was actually present for those lies?
and if those observers are not present to ask questions and to push back against lies-which they actually do as anyone who has been present for a presser. I realize most people on this thread don’t know much about journalism much less understand and practice the craft and understand the nuances involved. And there is no blowback for that, but if you’re not listening, you’re not learning. @EUWDTB has the right of it.
Yes, all other things being equal the press should be present when politicians lie. But if the condition for their access is that they don’t push back then access isn’t worth it. And if they are just repeating the lies without correction then that’s dereliction of duty and we should seek out sources that do push back, even if they don’t have access.
Getting most of my news from independent sources... Lincoln Square, Zeteo, Meidas. Good to see Dems holding the line. Disappointing that the message getting through is healthcare only and mostly ACA with minor mention of Medicaid. The Bernie/AOC vid was great as always but even there was only a quick inclusion of Medicaid.
Dem messaging needs to expand to combating tyranny. The country is focused on DC right now so now is the time. I think a significant reason for Trump's plummeting approval is his lawlessness and attack on our individual and collective rights. Trump's illegal tariffs are a great way to transition to lawlessness while also laying the blame for a faltering economy by clearly saying that the tariffs are relly a tax on low/moderate income Americans while billionaires get tax breaks and feed at the government trough