http://archive.is/yxZNb Basically NY Times isn't reporting news. They are aiming to sew division and nag Trump with race claims since the Mueller plan failed. I have never seen a paper choose a multi-year smear effort ahead of time instead of opting to report the news. But here it is. They are choosing to target Trump instead of organically reporting the news.
Then there was the case, a week or so ago, when the NYT changed their headline because it seemed to take it easy on Trump. The readers rebelled, threatening to cancel their subscriptions en masse. NYT prolly always has been lefty, but the changing revenue paradigm (less ads, so money must come from subscriptions) means they cater more and more to their readers in their content. This means the NYT has become extremely lefty. In fact, this has pretty much happened to all news outlets/organizations -- the changing revenue paradigm means that these organizations no longer seek to offer the "news" in any objective way. Rather, they offer "spin" that will keep their readers/audience engaged -- and renewing their subscriptions.
Media from the left and right create echo chambers pushing narratives rather than simply reporting the news these days. Once you realize that both sides do this, it is very easy to see through it. It is always much harder to see when the side you tend to agree with is doing it than when the "other" side does it.
They are doing what the rest of the media is doing. That is, for better or worse, covering #45 nonstop and then just printing money. The public can't get enough Trump coverage, be it glowing and fawning (Fox, etc) or incredibly negative (CNN, etc). He's so divisive himself, just from his own words and policies and actions, that it puts any media outlet in a tough spot every day. e.g. 1. Trump tells a lie, (or insults a person of color, or attacks a goldstar family, or...) 2. Media outlet has to decide whether to call it a lie (thereby being "negative" to viewers like yourself) or to try to spin it and explain what he may have really meant, in a gentle way (which makes them an accessory to the lie to viewers like me). It's like I tell my mom, when she says "the media is so negative about our president!" And I say, well, if you simply repeat his words and statements and actions, free of any judgment, it's more than 90% negative. He's just a selfish, combative person and has always been that way. That's not even up for debate if we're looking at his life.
I don't think it's the smoking gun you think it is, and I doubt this is anything much different than any other national political newsroom. These journalists are all thinking animals. They see the individual developments in the Administration (what you call organic) within the context of the larger narrative of the social forces at play and the motivations of the big players. They had earlier identified the Russia conspiracy as a story to follow because it was newsworthy. For good or bad, there isn't much new to wring out there because Congress was too chicken **** to do anything. As the country moves on and the racism will obviously be stepping up as an essential cog in Trump's re-election strategy, it only makes sense to recognize the big narrative and do the reporting within that context. At the same time, I'm sure Breitbart was having a staff meeting where they were talking about the socialist policies the new democrats want to push and how their reporting on each day's events should help show the reader how it's so. I think that's journalism.
Pro Trump poster b****es about MSM pushing Trump-Racist narrative, but at the same time its the narrative that many people (including Democrats) that'll divide the country further & help Trump get re-elected. If I was a Trump strategist I would think that this actually works in their benefit politically to stay in power regardless of how it divides the country. They reason why they are going with this strategy is because they are betting the MSM fumbles this issue, and creates more division for ratings. So far the MSM or corporate media is all about getting Trump re-elected by the way they frame the response to blatant racism that creates division & defensiveness rather than calling out Trump's tactics for what it is, and educating the public on the issues to solve real challenges. As a Democrat, if he wants to do racist crap, yeah... it'll hurt him, but the media framing of the debate the way the NYT or CNN handles this actually works in Trumps benefit. The Democrats want to call a spade a spade, and have a media narrative that then shows how different you are as a candidate or as a platform. Here's the proper response from a media effectiveness standpoint: -Media host Question - Trump recently called a caravan of immigrants in Mexico "invaders & vermin".... Do you consider this racist?? Answer - Yes I do, but I want people to know that this is a political strategy to divide Americans so Trump can desperately cling to power to continue to line the pockets of his billionaire friends with tax cut givaways for the 1%. My strategy is to unite Americans under a platform of economic & social equality. I want to root out the corruption in our current system & create an infrastructure for Americans to pursue the American dream with a fair economic & social system.... .... yada yada... but when talking about Trump and race, the MSM makes it hard for Democrats by their framing of the controversy that creates further division rather than using it as a launching point for the Democrats to show that they are the adults in the room who want to fix the country. EX: Typical MSM Media Host: Trump said something racist.... Are the Democrats making a mistake by calling this out? What about Antifa? Should Democrats spend time calling out far left groups as well? .... That is HORRIBLE MSM question framing around race that works in Trumps benefit, and is typically how they handle Trumps racism unfortunately.
From that bastion of liberal misinformation the Business Insider, our national embarrassment... The greatest US presidents ranked, according to political scientists Nearly 200 political scientists ranked the presidents by order of greatness in a survey, and President Donald Trump came in last. President Abraham Lincoln was first. Members of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section completed the survey online between December 2017 and January 2018. Presidential rankings tend to be subjective and divisive, but they also provide valuable insight into how historical views of presidents evolve over time. In a recent survey, nearly 200 political science scholars ranked US presidents on a scale of 0-100, from failure (zero) to average (50) to great (100). The totals were then averaged for each president and ranked from highest to lowest. A majority of the 170 respondents — roughly 57% — identified as Democrats. Just 13% were Republicans, while 27% said they were independents, and 3% selected other. The skewed sampling plus the fact that President Donald Trump was just starting his second year in office make it difficult to accurately compare him to previous presidents. But even among Republicans, Trump was ranked quite unfavorably. Respondents who identified as Republicans or conservatives ranked Trump 40th out of 44 presidents. Self-described Democrats and liberals both ranked him last. Here are the greatest US presidents, ranked according to current and recent members of the American Political Science Association: 44: Donald Trump < That sting you feel is your inability to accept the truth.
