NYTimes' dubious headline

[LessAspin]

New York Times has had numerous dubious headlines but this most recent one is especially egregious and problematic..



Mark Jacob has an excellent Twitter thread on why this is wrong on several levels.

First and foremost it creates this false narrative that Trump is Tough when the truth is Kamala Harris is and has always been more effective, and tougher than Trump, on basically every issue..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Blue Owl]

1. The whiny golf-cart toddler loser with makeup and hairspray is tough?

I must have missed that story in the NYT….

[surfered]

2. You'll never see the headline: Trump Goes To Pennsylvania Trying To Project Sanity

[Flatrat]

3. NYT headlines are consistently biased to the right

A mockery of journalistic integrity

[D23MIURG23]

4. NYTimes smears Harris, trying to project fairness in propaganda blitz.

In their newest attempt to feign journalistic integrity, the so called "paper of record" has again smeared Harris with biased headlines in an attempt to convince readers of their fairness. The common knowledge at the Times seems to have been that neither party can be substantially different than the other; however, this has been challenged since the GOP decided to nominate a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist, who once tried to seize power after losing an election.

As a paper who has never been in danger of reflection or self awareness, the Times has risen to the challenge. They countered the multiple criminal indictments of former president Trump by tirelessly "balancing" the coverage with numerous stories observing that his opponent, President Joe Biden, is several years older than Mr. Trump. This summer, when President Biden chose to drop out, the paper took aim at Harris, holding her to a much higher standard than Mr. Trump on every issue, ensuring that Americans without the capacity for critical thinking will continue to get the impression that there is any kind of reasonable comparison between the two candidates.

"We as a paper need to ensure that people hear stories from us that sound skeptical and nuanced, even when the facts suggest a much simpler pattern" An unnamed NYTimes executive didn't say. While the times was not contacted for comment, their repeated practices of making up favorable stories about the Iraq War during George W. Bush's first term leads this author to believe they would sign off on blatant fabrication.

"We are not here to inform the public" The same executive concluded.

"If we've done our jobs then the average casually interested American mid-wit will conclude that we are a serious news outlet, without learning anything in the process"

[LessAspin]

5. NYT is broken...

Link to tweet

Link to tweet