I’d give anything for all news organizations to stop quoting his deranged 3 a.m. social media posts in headlines as if they’re news. Again, it’s a question of normalization. Random toilet-postings are not newsworthy and should not be considered valid communications of government policy! Ignore him unless or until there’s a press conference or a vetted press release. If his office won’t provide access, oh well; let’s see how long he can go without attention.
Agreed re the Times! It often feels like they’re writing solid stories but flying cheerful headlines supporting this corrupt administration. Their headlines normalize and give the sheen of legitimacy to this unfit regime, and by selecting the jaunty lexicon of sports, makes it all seem as if the story itself matters no more than the outcome of a game. And is no more lasting or important.
" Less polite deference; more plainspoken directness. "
Or 'less disingenuous neutrality, more brutal objectivity.'
That's why I love reading Jennifer Rubin in the Contrarian; she pulls no punches and takes no excuses.
Also, Ms. Sullivan, your use of the term "self-serving billionaires" is an appropriate maxim for the times we live in. So much of our current political dysfunction can be attributed to our out-of-control, corrupt campaign-financing system (Citizens United) that is allowing self-serving billionaires to buy and sell our government representatives.
Chief Justice Roberts once spoke of wanting to leave a legacy, evidently positve, of his time at the head of the court. Roberts has scored an own goal (It's World Cup time!) in the opposite direction, starting with Citizens United, then the repeal of Roe v Wade, and finally the finding that the president, obviously Trump, was immune from prosecution for acts commited while in office. Official acts, I presume?
Perhaps this is the result of an organization walking a fine line to avoid yet another Trump lawsuit. Dealing with those must be exhausting and distracting.
It is frustrating and disturbing to read the NYT these days. Yes, the reporting is strong and mostly spot on. But the slants of the headlines devalue so much of it, they are doing their franchise a disservice as well as the rest of us.
Keep hammering this problem with "normalizing" headlines, Margaret. The Times does great work, but the soft heads are misleading at best. Also, media organizations need to print more of Trump's word-salad (rotten salad, to boot) orations. Today, Heather Cox Richardson repeated one of his insane ramblings. People need to read what his deteriorating mind produces, without having to subject themselves to "Truth" Social.
It was not a headline, but the AP story about the Great American State Fair that ran in the Denver Post on July 4 included, as its first quotation, a comment from a pardoned J-6 convict. It was infuriating to hear from a J-6 criminal on the nation’s 250th anniversary, and it is awful that the MSM casually normalizes MAGA insurrectionists. It’s possible, since there were so few people at the fair, that it was hard for the reporter to find someone to quote. But if the only people attending the fair were pardoned J-6 criminals, that in itself is a story. Like the NYT, the AP spends far too much time normalizing the indefensible. They are too polite to report the shit sticking to these people’s shoes.
This NYT headline from 2 July raised my eyebrows: “Left-wing Insurgent Ousts 15-term Congresswoman in Colorado.” It makes it sound as if she is Che Guevara rather than a 29-year-old Democratic Socialist (as described in the article). I could only think how the headline plays into the hands of “The communists are coming” clarion call that is only going to get louder as the midterms draw near. Editors were either sleeping or unaware of the meaning and connotation of “insurgent.”
Timorous sane-washing remains the Times' most egregious headline-writing flaw. You were there, Ms. Sullivan. I understand that the headline editors are totally separate from the reporters. Are they spectral figures who haunt a dark corner of the office, eschewing contact with anyone they regard as the hoi polloi, i.e., staff with contact to the outside world? I remember a Spy parody from the 80's of a Times headline: "Exotic Drug, 'Cocaine', Appears Popular".
The entire Platner episode, from his short-lived campaign, to his now demanding a say in who his replacement will be (what position does he hold in the party? What rules gives him that authority?), exposes a lot of how the electorate feels about women and their power.
Platner was hailed as a savior candidate despite obvious red flags and lack of experience. (Heather Cox Richardson lays out some of why Maine structurally offers less of a bench for either party). Years ago, I attended a speech by former UN ambassador Andrew Young. On race, he said, we’re doing OK. On women, not so much.
And speaking of the NYT, they immediately jumped in with a “Dems in Disarray” story about the “fight” over his replacement within the Party. It’s a companion piece to its Trump sane-washing tropes.
As opposed to the other party, in total array. How predictable, how exhausting, how utterly unhelpful. Meanwhile, we have voters showing up to vote who don’t understand primaries, which, given the varying rules from state to state and presidential to state and local primaries, is understandable. Maybe a bit more attention to the mechanics of government and a little less to conjecture about politics would go a long way to improving government and restoring faith in journalism.
She has spoken at length, including last night, about why she would not want to do it and what people asking or wanting her to says about the state of politics, particularly in Maine. As someone old enough to remember Reagan (who, to be fair, did have his record as governor to run on), I’m not keen on candidates without government experience, no matter how much they may excel at their day job. Not every skill set is transferable.
Didn't know she'd already rejected the idea -- all I know of her is what I read in her daily letters -- but I'm glad she has. Where she is, she's a national treasure. In the Senate, she'd just be one among 100, most of whom are stupid, evil, or both. Can't imagine she'd be happy there.
When I was a newspaper editor, I paid a lot of attention to critics. For one, they were our readers and I wanted to know what they were saying. For another, they might be right (gasp!). I admit I'm confounded that the normalizing and sane-washing headlines in the Times continue. They have been pointed out and criticized ever since Trump returned to office. (For instance, the "Trump says" hed has become a parody, given that it often is followed by a lie.)
You're right that the Times should talk with staffers about headlines over stories and on social media. The KISS acronym - Keep it Simple, Stupid - applies particularly to headlines.
I scream into the void at some of the NYTs headlines. I occasionally call them out FWIW. They are softening the blow to trump and that's wrong. In general, I'm surprised by many articles written - in any media - that are exactly opposite of the headline. I have to caution myself the read the article, not just headlines.
As for Planter too many of us are guilty of wanting more than what he appeared. He needs to step aside so Maine can move forward.
Mainer here. Platner has been a thrill and a heart breaker. A real student of economic policy through US history and politically brilliant in his organizing with (he says) 15000 volunteers, he has been a breath of fresh air in his intense commitment to seeing our national woes through the lens of the shocking division of wealth, even naming private equity as the wrecking ball that it is (and the fall of newspapers is connected to private equity)… while most senators leave that unmentioned and stick to stale cliches about “discussions around the kitchen table”.
And Platners apparent personal growth past his time of isolation and heavy drinking were also a revelation on how deeply we need to see elected officials who can dissect matters of the heart and personal brokenness. His work ethic in campaigning has also been impressive doing multiple events per week some of them bringing 100’s of people waiting in the hallways to get in (while Mills was doing nice little house parties). He has been a phenom - he brings something people really want.
Well! Too bad he’s not ready for the big stage of public service as the last two rounds of news dumps on his problems with womwn have stressed the structure to the point of collapse. I have not seen people defending him who know anything about what builds credibility in a rape allegation, and Racicot brought that credibility.
In Maine we do have a fine group of Dem candidates who just ran in the gubernatorial primary and are likely willing to run once Platner steps down from the race. We would have some super expedited open process. But he has to announce! However his organization of volunteers would be gloriously useful as developed over the many months of campaigning.
One thing I had a lot of problems with, and still do, was how little the NYT covered his policies and why people were drawn to his message vs the amount of effort they put into dragging him down. I'm not in the camp of support no matter what, but the paper definitely seemed to have an agenda.
I wish you'd gone deeper into the why of these bad headlines. Surely, it's more than an accident. The Times does great work, but also backs off with Trump too often. It's also fair to ask why the Trump name appears so often in soft-pedaling headlines, each leading to perspectives on the same story, if it's not mainly link bait and Google-groveling. Taking a broader perspective, the Times routinely, day after day, posts headlines that bait and switch readers into paywalls without warning. It's especially awful with The Athletic, where whole online sections lead relentlessly to the paywall. Maybe they're pitching income as much as news.
I’d give anything for all news organizations to stop quoting his deranged 3 a.m. social media posts in headlines as if they’re news. Again, it’s a question of normalization. Random toilet-postings are not newsworthy and should not be considered valid communications of government policy! Ignore him unless or until there’s a press conference or a vetted press release. If his office won’t provide access, oh well; let’s see how long he can go without attention.
Agreed re the Times! It often feels like they’re writing solid stories but flying cheerful headlines supporting this corrupt administration. Their headlines normalize and give the sheen of legitimacy to this unfit regime, and by selecting the jaunty lexicon of sports, makes it all seem as if the story itself matters no more than the outcome of a game. And is no more lasting or important.
" Less polite deference; more plainspoken directness. "
Or 'less disingenuous neutrality, more brutal objectivity.'
That's why I love reading Jennifer Rubin in the Contrarian; she pulls no punches and takes no excuses.
Also, Ms. Sullivan, your use of the term "self-serving billionaires" is an appropriate maxim for the times we live in. So much of our current political dysfunction can be attributed to our out-of-control, corrupt campaign-financing system (Citizens United) that is allowing self-serving billionaires to buy and sell our government representatives.
Chief Justice Roberts once spoke of wanting to leave a legacy, evidently positve, of his time at the head of the court. Roberts has scored an own goal (It's World Cup time!) in the opposite direction, starting with Citizens United, then the repeal of Roe v Wade, and finally the finding that the president, obviously Trump, was immune from prosecution for acts commited while in office. Official acts, I presume?
Perhaps this is the result of an organization walking a fine line to avoid yet another Trump lawsuit. Dealing with those must be exhausting and distracting.
The BBC did it correctly; Pursue discovery
It is frustrating and disturbing to read the NYT these days. Yes, the reporting is strong and mostly spot on. But the slants of the headlines devalue so much of it, they are doing their franchise a disservice as well as the rest of us.
Keep hammering this problem with "normalizing" headlines, Margaret. The Times does great work, but the soft heads are misleading at best. Also, media organizations need to print more of Trump's word-salad (rotten salad, to boot) orations. Today, Heather Cox Richardson repeated one of his insane ramblings. People need to read what his deteriorating mind produces, without having to subject themselves to "Truth" Social.
So agreed!!
It makes one's stomach turn to have to parse his toilet screeds.
He's the first American president who can't even speak his native language.
Needs a muzzle.
"Unscheduled Japanese Flights Disrupt Honolulu Sunday"
You win the day!
It was not a headline, but the AP story about the Great American State Fair that ran in the Denver Post on July 4 included, as its first quotation, a comment from a pardoned J-6 convict. It was infuriating to hear from a J-6 criminal on the nation’s 250th anniversary, and it is awful that the MSM casually normalizes MAGA insurrectionists. It’s possible, since there were so few people at the fair, that it was hard for the reporter to find someone to quote. But if the only people attending the fair were pardoned J-6 criminals, that in itself is a story. Like the NYT, the AP spends far too much time normalizing the indefensible. They are too polite to report the shit sticking to these people’s shoes.
This NYT headline from 2 July raised my eyebrows: “Left-wing Insurgent Ousts 15-term Congresswoman in Colorado.” It makes it sound as if she is Che Guevara rather than a 29-year-old Democratic Socialist (as described in the article). I could only think how the headline plays into the hands of “The communists are coming” clarion call that is only going to get louder as the midterms draw near. Editors were either sleeping or unaware of the meaning and connotation of “insurgent.”
Where are the equivalent headlines on the right? Have you seen a headline calling out the GOP, i.e. Right-wing Ken Paxton found guilty of voter fraud?
On the NYT: even the puzzles offend. A recent midi crossword puzzle normalized antifa by calling it out as an actual “group”. Just plain false.
Timorous sane-washing remains the Times' most egregious headline-writing flaw. You were there, Ms. Sullivan. I understand that the headline editors are totally separate from the reporters. Are they spectral figures who haunt a dark corner of the office, eschewing contact with anyone they regard as the hoi polloi, i.e., staff with contact to the outside world? I remember a Spy parody from the 80's of a Times headline: "Exotic Drug, 'Cocaine', Appears Popular".
Margaret, is there any way we could force the headline writers to read NYT Pitchbot every day?
What a great idea. Doug J. deserves a Medal of Freedom.
The entire Platner episode, from his short-lived campaign, to his now demanding a say in who his replacement will be (what position does he hold in the party? What rules gives him that authority?), exposes a lot of how the electorate feels about women and their power.
Platner was hailed as a savior candidate despite obvious red flags and lack of experience. (Heather Cox Richardson lays out some of why Maine structurally offers less of a bench for either party). Years ago, I attended a speech by former UN ambassador Andrew Young. On race, he said, we’re doing OK. On women, not so much.
We have so far to go on both.
And speaking of the NYT, they immediately jumped in with a “Dems in Disarray” story about the “fight” over his replacement within the Party. It’s a companion piece to its Trump sane-washing tropes.
As opposed to the other party, in total array. How predictable, how exhausting, how utterly unhelpful. Meanwhile, we have voters showing up to vote who don’t understand primaries, which, given the varying rules from state to state and presidential to state and local primaries, is understandable. Maybe a bit more attention to the mechanics of government and a little less to conjecture about politics would go a long way to improving government and restoring faith in journalism.
A good story and headline in the Bangor Daily News (local news!}, "Maine Democrats accuse Graham Platner of trying to influence race to replace him".
My mom suggested Richardson as a replacement candidate. I think she'd do a great job, but I doubt she wants it.
She has spoken at length, including last night, about why she would not want to do it and what people asking or wanting her to says about the state of politics, particularly in Maine. As someone old enough to remember Reagan (who, to be fair, did have his record as governor to run on), I’m not keen on candidates without government experience, no matter how much they may excel at their day job. Not every skill set is transferable.
Didn't know she'd already rejected the idea -- all I know of her is what I read in her daily letters -- but I'm glad she has. Where she is, she's a national treasure. In the Senate, she'd just be one among 100, most of whom are stupid, evil, or both. Can't imagine she'd be happy there.
She does a politics chat twice a week (Tuesday and Thursday, usually, I think) on here and Utube. It’s worth a listen.
As a retired journalist, I think you are spot-on.
I subscribe to the NYTimes e-edition. It is frustrating, to say the least, to read some headlines.
When I was a newspaper editor, I paid a lot of attention to critics. For one, they were our readers and I wanted to know what they were saying. For another, they might be right (gasp!). I admit I'm confounded that the normalizing and sane-washing headlines in the Times continue. They have been pointed out and criticized ever since Trump returned to office. (For instance, the "Trump says" hed has become a parody, given that it often is followed by a lie.)
You're right that the Times should talk with staffers about headlines over stories and on social media. The KISS acronym - Keep it Simple, Stupid - applies particularly to headlines.
I scream into the void at some of the NYTs headlines. I occasionally call them out FWIW. They are softening the blow to trump and that's wrong. In general, I'm surprised by many articles written - in any media - that are exactly opposite of the headline. I have to caution myself the read the article, not just headlines.
As for Planter too many of us are guilty of wanting more than what he appeared. He needs to step aside so Maine can move forward.
Mainer here. Platner has been a thrill and a heart breaker. A real student of economic policy through US history and politically brilliant in his organizing with (he says) 15000 volunteers, he has been a breath of fresh air in his intense commitment to seeing our national woes through the lens of the shocking division of wealth, even naming private equity as the wrecking ball that it is (and the fall of newspapers is connected to private equity)… while most senators leave that unmentioned and stick to stale cliches about “discussions around the kitchen table”.
And Platners apparent personal growth past his time of isolation and heavy drinking were also a revelation on how deeply we need to see elected officials who can dissect matters of the heart and personal brokenness. His work ethic in campaigning has also been impressive doing multiple events per week some of them bringing 100’s of people waiting in the hallways to get in (while Mills was doing nice little house parties). He has been a phenom - he brings something people really want.
Well! Too bad he’s not ready for the big stage of public service as the last two rounds of news dumps on his problems with womwn have stressed the structure to the point of collapse. I have not seen people defending him who know anything about what builds credibility in a rape allegation, and Racicot brought that credibility.
In Maine we do have a fine group of Dem candidates who just ran in the gubernatorial primary and are likely willing to run once Platner steps down from the race. We would have some super expedited open process. But he has to announce! However his organization of volunteers would be gloriously useful as developed over the many months of campaigning.
One thing I had a lot of problems with, and still do, was how little the NYT covered his policies and why people were drawn to his message vs the amount of effort they put into dragging him down. I'm not in the camp of support no matter what, but the paper definitely seemed to have an agenda.
Spot on analysis, agree completely, thank you.
Sorry about the typo. Platner.
"Supreme Court Thwarts Trump's Plan to Steal Midterms"
“Supreme Court Thwarts One Prong of Trump’s Plan to Steal Midterms” - too long?
I wish you'd gone deeper into the why of these bad headlines. Surely, it's more than an accident. The Times does great work, but also backs off with Trump too often. It's also fair to ask why the Trump name appears so often in soft-pedaling headlines, each leading to perspectives on the same story, if it's not mainly link bait and Google-groveling. Taking a broader perspective, the Times routinely, day after day, posts headlines that bait and switch readers into paywalls without warning. It's especially awful with The Athletic, where whole online sections lead relentlessly to the paywall. Maybe they're pitching income as much as news.
She went deeper in an Aug. 8 column last year -- 'I fixed that for you': Why mainstream headlines keep failing -- https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/i-fixed-that-for-you-why-mainstream.