At the New York Times, Bret Stephens and Gail Collins take up their weekly conversation:
Bret: I’m still where I was last week: waiting for Harris to persuade me to vote for her. What’s wrong with asking her to sit down for a one-on-one interview with a serious journalist who will ask some tough but reasonable questions about urgent public policy matters? The same, of course, should be done with Trump.
Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.
Wait. Say that again?
Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.
Why should the New York Times hold Harris to a higher standard than Trump? Isn't that sort of our whole problem, that Trump isn't held to anything within spitting distance of normal human standards? Maybe now is a good time to start.
+1,000,000
It's likely a combination of a few of different things:
1) NYtimes opinion columnists are Serious People, and as all Serious People know, the republicans are crazies/children and thus problems with governance are not attributable to them, but rather to democrats (who are generally fellow Serious People) for failing to rein in the republicans. Ergo, we Serious People must hold Serious People like Harris to a higher standard.
2) While it is true that the NYtimes editorial board has endorsed Harris b/c Trump is an anti-democracy disaster-in-waiting, the NYtimes doesn't want to look biased, so it has to Demand More of Harris.
3) While it is true that the NYtimes editorial board has endorsed Harris b/c Trump is an anti-democracy disaster-in-waiting, NYtimes subscriptions and stock price went way up when Trump was president, so the NYtimes has to Demand More of Harris.
We have the right to hold the New York Times to a higher standard.
++
Stephanie Ruhle took Stephen’s to the woodshed for saying this on Bill Maher’s show.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/09/why-did-donald-trump-called-msnbcs-and-jersey-girl-stephanie-ruhle-a-dumb-as-a-rock-bimbo.html?outputType=amp
I would tend to agree with the +$1M, but for the fact that in fact there are different standards.
Trump, for example, says stupid shit in the vein of "if elected, I will eliminate all income taxes." That's stupid, but other than a press conference where the interviewer points out how stupid it actually is, I mean, what more is there to say? He said "all income taxes" -- that's what he means. F -it, really why even bother.
OTOH, if Harris says, "I have a program to accomplish X" under normal operating procedure the interview would be "OK, how so?"
So I guess it is a higher standard. I mean, of course its a higher standard.
So, its not as if its the NYT's fault as to what "standard" Trump is at -- the problem is there is no need for any follow up questions, Trump has made it quite clear exactly how stupid his proposals are, and as a matter of fact if anyone questions any of his idiotic proposals, its they who are an idiot, not him.
The real problem the NYT has is that its clear how dumb anyone would have to be to even consider voting for Trump, but one red line the NYT cannot cross is calling 40% of the population morons.
So, in a way I never thought I would consider, yes, Harris has a completely different standard.
When you think about it, Biden's dog had a higher standard.
"but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard." No, you actually don't. You either treat them the same, which you haven't been doing since 2016, or you can fuck right the fuck off. The arrogance is breath taking.
You are, of course, a thousand percent correct. But guess what? Neither she, nor even more heinous offenders like Maggie Haberman or Peter Baker, give even one fuck what you or any other reader thinks. Except, maybe, to label you as a cog in the left wing industry out to besmirch the NYT's political coverage, as Haberman literally did recently.
I cancelled my NYT subscription in June. There were many straws before the last one, but their coverage of Biden was worse than shameful; it was repulsive. Now, I'm just one person, but if enough people send a -- what do they call it? --a 'price signal', maybe they'll change their tune. If not, then I predict the Gray Lady will become a cheap lady in red.
Mine ends this month. For me, it was when TFG reversed his voting intention on the Florida abortion ballot question, and the NYT reported this as a ‘clarification’ of his position. Not a flip-flop. Not a finger-to-the-wind opportunistic pandering in the face of outcry. Bah.
We were decades-long subscribers, but there comes a point …
Pingback: Dave's linkblog
And let's make clear that, while interviews with media celebs doesn't really add a thing, certainly not in the way of exploring policy; that Harris, after so much outreach to communities made time anyway: and Trump just killed a scheduled interview (free publicity at that) with 60 Minutes -- it's still not good enough because they weren't serious interviews with the likes of hacks like these.
Oh, and another NYT feature tomorrow picking up right-wing talking points. You see, Walz was teaching in Asia when the Tienemin Square massacre took place, in June, and he was moved to do his best to get a flight to see for himself and to show solidarity. But he didn't get there in, say, Juniy. No, it took until August. What a filthy liar.
"The same, of course, should be done with Trump."
Good luck with that. Trump's response would be that of a concussed man who has just fallen off a coconut tree.
The funny thing is all the Trump supporters who believe the debate was rigged because he got fact-checked.
I think the ticket is doing the right thing, go out, campaign, and keep on campaigning until the election.
Their biggest problem now is Trump says some crazy shit and he overwhelms the ability to cover it. And if they fact-check him, it's almost worse, which seems impossible but it is. We think Trump is a dumbass, and he is, but damn can he play the media like nobody else.
It's called working the refs and Republicans have raised it to an art form.
What's worse, the expression of the media's entitlements or the willing embrace of inequity?
Holy shit. Collins literally said the quiet part out loud: the press grade Democrats on a curve. Republicans can be petulant tantrum throwers (liars, racists, rioters, Nazis, etc.), but Democrats have to be the adults in the room at all times.
They're parodies of themselves, the NYT political desk.
See you're obviously not a Serious Journalist.
This is the same rag that took an instant hatred for all things Clinton because, as near as I can figure out, he came from a podunk state that has no right to elect presidents.
Well that, and he was neither a celebrity nor from money.
This is the same rag that partnered with Breitbart to expose the Clinton Foundation scandal. Of course it all turned out to be a nothing burger, but the bigger scandal was the readiness with which the selfproclaimed legitmate journalists at the NYT jumped into bed with Breitbart.
These people are morally bankrupt.
An incumbent VP should be held to a higher standard, all other things being equal.
But things are not equal, and sufficient reporting exists (even in the absence of fresh interviews) that Harris is a normal, conventional, credible candidate.
Wait, what? An incumbent VP should be held to a higher standard than a former President?!?
Wow. Their thinking is Harris is obviously a better candidate, so they have to be harder on her than they are on Trump.
Technically she's not wrong. They do have the "right" to cover the campaign any way they see fit. If they want to be fully in the tank for Trump (like Fox News) that is, in fact their right.
It also makes them shitty journalists.
If I talked to Bret Stephens every week I too would mentally decline.
The NYT chose this path. Whether the individual reporters led the way or simply followed orders from above isnt important.
Donald Trump is great for their business and their careers. Lots of money to be made off facism and repression.
I stopped buying the NYT after the Clinton email "scandal". But even before that, and now (I can access it for free), what makes me skeptical of them is that they are sloppy and seem driven to get clicks rather than to educate their readers. I know this because whenever they write on a topic that I know a lot about, its half bullshit laid out in a way to get eye-balls. So when they cover a topic that I don't know, I look at the title and a bit of the text and then go to better sources (primary literature, industry-related analysis). If I have to use a news source, the best outlets are all non-American
1) The Economist
2) Reuters
3) CBC
4) Al Jazeera
The American news model has turned into a sad joke. Maybe it always was a joke. Like Kevin, I blame Faux News for the right's descent into madness but the middle and the left have a layer of superficiality that is maddening in its own right.
It is actually correct to hold Harris to better standards, but only after you dismissed Trump as a totally unacceptable and dangerous candidate (and hence that you are going to vote for Harris).
It is the fact that they are not already commited to vote for Harris which is the real problem.
My guess would be that that's pretty much what Collins meant. In her weekly discussions with Stephens, Stephens always dismisses Trump as an unacceptable buffoon for whom he would never vote before they discuss whether he'll vote for Harris.
I'll guess that Collins meant something like this:
Given that Trump will never behave in the ways a serious candidate would or should, we have a right to expect something better from Harris.
That would be better, if she actually have said it.
At least from the transcript Kevin gave, there is no way to deduce it.
We have a right to expect a journalist to be able to express his/her/their thoughts with clarity.