mozz

Ah yes, all those OG Democrats with their humane and sensible Israel policy. As an old-school left wing person like you, I remember them well. Which ones were your favorites?

"By the way we added a new feature! Now you can filter by..."

There was a Masto post recently where someone's conservative mother told her that she knows being gay is a choice, because she feel attraction to girls, but she chooses not to act on it, and that's the responsible Christian thing to do or w/e.

It legit made me all of a sudden realize why there's so much overlap between "we have to punish the gays and make it illegal" and "I secretly go to male prostitutes all the time" in Republican circles. It just all of a sudden harmonized and clicked into place and made perfect sense.

You are left-wing, correct? Good leftist who's just upset with Biden for not being left enough?

I ask because I have literally never heard a left wing person say "Democrat party".

So most of my assertion that the Times is the only profitable one comes from this article.

But places like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times now face similar crises: How does a newspaper make money in 2024? People looking to answer that question invariably turn toward the New York Times. At the end of last year, as scores of journalists were getting their pink slips, the paper announced that it had passed ten million total subscribers.

“There is like one place you can work right now with any kind of job security and it is The New York Times and that’s only because they have a shitload of recipes on a nicely coded little cooking app that you can subscribe to and also because your parents are hooked on Wordle.”

NYT not the only big outlet doing "actual journalism"

not sure about WSJ's profitability quarter to quarter, but I don't think they are actively sinking.

The Facebook Files story is not exactly the victory for journalism you're saying though... my immediately takeaway from that is that the journalistic impact of the (surely accurate) information in it will probably be exceeded by the propaganda impact of adding weight to the "Twitter Files" mythology by simply running the story and calling it that. Maybe I am wrong in that but that's my immediate takeaway.

So doomsaying stories about how all their readers are dying notwithstanding, I guess I should admit that WSJ is consistently making money (even during recent quarters when NewsCorp has dipped into the red overall). My own internal compass categorizes them not quite in the journalism category because they have such a right-wing-friendly perspective but I'll admit that's 100% based on ideology. They are journalism I guess, yes; it's not like they print lies or made up stuff or anything.

If you went here and had a substantive rebuttal to the reasons Biden's actually been way above average for a US president, you'd be the first.

I won't necessarily disagree wrt the small readership -- but The New York Times is notable because it is at this point the only big outlet which is both still doing actual journalism (as in researching big stories from scratch and determining the truth of them from primary sources) and also making a profit at it. There are lots of examples of each one in isolation (although, tragically, less and less of the first one year by year), but they are the only one left that is doing both.

If they're starting to turn over to the "truth doesn't matter gimme that bag" side (which it seems like to some degree they are), then it's a significant loss.

Yeah, I mostly agree. I wasn't trying to give the guy a free pass -- just saying that really the fault lies with whoever gave him the job in the first place or told him that's an ok way for a journalist to behave.

But yes, the way he describes looking at political coverage is gross journalistic malpractice and people should be telling him that (or giving him a different role in society if he really insists that how he's doing it is the way.)

I actually usually don't realize it's your stuff until after I've gotten irritated by it -- there is a clear pattern of me saying something on your posts, but that's because your posts have a clear pattern of being dishonest in a particular way that pisses me off and makes me want to say something about it, not anything personal to you on my side.

I've accused this user in the past of being dishonest about their motivation in the stuff they post. They say they're a far-left person who's trying to post these things to create good things for the left in America, but the majority of what they post is just a clear pattern of dishonest borderline-propaganda about Biden several times a day every single day. Something like "Biden's conduct wrt Israel is unforgivable" I could understand and in some cases find some common ground of agreement with, definitely wouldn't lead me to accuse that person of being a shill, but instead of that it's "Biden is deliberately betraying people who voted for him in 2020 by doing (things he objectively didn't do) and we can't make the same mistake again," combined with no interest in talking about whether he actually did or didn't do whatever thing he objectively didn't do.

So, I don't think I specifically said they were a Russian troll specifically, but I definitely accused them of being a shill.

I do not. I didn't even really like Biden until y'all started throwing shade at him that was clearly not accurate, and I had to read up on what he's been doing in order to respond to it.

I mean, if they were reporting on Biden's progress in governing through that lens, and Trump's progress in the election, then I could see validity to what you're saying as the reason why. But that's not the case -- they're reporting the election in those unequal terms.

One great example is the little nugget contained in his answer, where Trump is "winning primary races" and that's a notable point about his popularity. Biden's won 86% of the primary popular vote. Trump's won 72% of the primary popular vote. Every single person who follows political news knows that there's a little revolt of uncommitted voters because of Biden's support for Israel. How many people know about 30+% of voters in Republican primaries saying that they won't necessarily support the eventual nominee in November? That's very unusual, and clearly a bigger story on exactly the same subject, and it'd be worth diving into the reasons behind it because they would uncover some objective things underlying their decisions that would be great to report on. Yet somehow it gets less press than the uncommitted voters making problems for Biden (which, obviously, are also an important story to report on.)

I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.

I mean, every president in modern history has whined about how the press is being mean to them (usually with some validity). It's part of the job. But it doesn't mean that careful analysis of "is the press coverage actually slanted" suddenly turns into an automatically wrong thing.