Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back in 2015/2016 due to the coverage of Hillary. The NYT does a horrible job on covering Democrats and it is clear that the NYT editorial board is trying to punish President Biden
Link to tweet
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219
The seemingly minor incident over sourcing might not have escalated or triggered such emotional responses on both sides if not for tensions between the White House and the Times that had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years. Bidens closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the papers D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.
According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the countrys newspaper of record for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the papers coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.
Although the presidents communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.
The presidents press flacks might bemoan what they see as the entitlement of Times staffers, but they themselves put the newspaper on the highest of pedestals given its history, stature and unparalleled reach. And yet, they see the Times falling short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage as it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws and vastly different commitments to democratic principles.....
Although the newspaper, like most mainstream outlets with a heavy White House presence, devoted pages of coverage to the presidents early legislative successes, its unrelenting focus on Bidens advanced age and his low numbers in the NYTs approval poll have frustrated the president and top aides to no end. Beyond that, they bemoan the newspapers penchant for sweepy comparisons, analytical reporter memos referred to in the Biden press shop as opinion pieces or diary entries and story frames that seem consistently skeptical.......
The Times desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspapers White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspapers midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper or any major newspaper an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time......
When describing their grievances with the Times, almost every Biden administration and campaign official used the word entitled to characterize the institution writ large and several of the individuals within the newsroom, where Timesian is an adjective routinely deployed without irony. Those officials described reporters who refused to correct minor errors or mischaracterizations in stories or those who havent been willing to engage with anyone besides the most senior administration officials. That said, many White House officials maintain productive working relationships with most of the Times reporters who cover the beat.
According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the countrys newspaper of record for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the papers coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.
Although the presidents communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.
The presidents press flacks might bemoan what they see as the entitlement of Times staffers, but they themselves put the newspaper on the highest of pedestals given its history, stature and unparalleled reach. And yet, they see the Times falling short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage as it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws and vastly different commitments to democratic principles.....
Although the newspaper, like most mainstream outlets with a heavy White House presence, devoted pages of coverage to the presidents early legislative successes, its unrelenting focus on Bidens advanced age and his low numbers in the NYTs approval poll have frustrated the president and top aides to no end. Beyond that, they bemoan the newspapers penchant for sweepy comparisons, analytical reporter memos referred to in the Biden press shop as opinion pieces or diary entries and story frames that seem consistently skeptical.......
The Times desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspapers White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspapers midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper or any major newspaper an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time......
When describing their grievances with the Times, almost every Biden administration and campaign official used the word entitled to characterize the institution writ large and several of the individuals within the newsroom, where Timesian is an adjective routinely deployed without irony. Those officials described reporters who refused to correct minor errors or mischaracterizations in stories or those who havent been willing to engage with anyone besides the most senior administration officials. That said, many White House officials maintain productive working relationships with most of the Times reporters who cover the beat.
I am glad that I cancelled my subscription to the NYT and I tend to discount NYT coverage of President Biden
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
11 replies, 577 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House (Original Post)
LetMyPeopleVote
Apr 25
OP
So did I. I had a digital subscription, but couldn't cancel it online... I had to literally CALL
50 Shades Of Blue
Apr 25
#3
Bezos is a greedy sweatshop owner, but he leaves our democracy alone and he leaves his reporters alone
dalton99a
Apr 26
#10
The New York Times notably doesn't refute any quotes of claims in today's story.
LetMyPeopleVote
Apr 26
#8
underpants
(182,883 posts)1. Don't pick fights with those who buy ink by the barrel
Something like that
onecaliberal
(32,898 posts)2. Completely sever access.
The end. They are liars who do nothing but make things up anyway.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,048 posts)3. So did I. I had a digital subscription, but couldn't cancel it online... I had to literally CALL
the NYT and ARGUE with the customer service rep over canceling my fucking subscription.
spooky3
(34,481 posts)4. I subscribed to WaPo and NYT for years. I see WaPo
As superior at least when it comes to political coverage, though both are imperfect.
I canceled NYT a few months ago over their age bias (the straw that broke the camels back).
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,567 posts)5. I have an online subscription to the Washington Post
The Post is not perfect but does a better job compared to the NYT
dalton99a
(81,592 posts)10. Bezos is a greedy sweatshop owner, but he leaves our democracy alone and he leaves his reporters alone
as long as they don't write stories about Amazon
Xoan
(25,323 posts)6. Objective reporting ...
my ass.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,567 posts)7. New York Times Reporter Admits The Paper Has An Anti-Biden Bias
Water is also wet
Link to tweet
https://www.thedailypoliticususa.com/p/new-york-times-reporter-admits-the?r=f805&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
A New York Times reporter said that their boss, publisher AG Sulzberger, is "pissed" that President Joe Biden hasn't done any interviews and "quietly encourages all of the tough reporting on his age."
All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter theyre mad at that day, one Times journalist said. Its A.G. Hes the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasnt done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age," Politico reported.
Negative, obsessive coverage about the age of one candidate while normalizing the criminally indicted candidate who incited an attack against his own country because a person is resentful that they aren't getting access isn't giving "objectivity." The emotionally-centered coverage of Biden is apparent to many readers.
The Times have attempted to get President Biden to give them an exclusive interview for years to no avail. "In Sulzbergers view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency." Indeed, "Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden."
They report that the Biden administration respects the Times as the paper of record, but see it as failing to meet this specific (encroaching autocracy, my words) challenge to American democracy and is resentful over coverage they see as catering to elites while they are a working class administration, trying to lift up those who have been forgotten.
All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter theyre mad at that day, one Times journalist said. Its A.G. Hes the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasnt done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age," Politico reported.
Negative, obsessive coverage about the age of one candidate while normalizing the criminally indicted candidate who incited an attack against his own country because a person is resentful that they aren't getting access isn't giving "objectivity." The emotionally-centered coverage of Biden is apparent to many readers.
The Times have attempted to get President Biden to give them an exclusive interview for years to no avail. "In Sulzbergers view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency." Indeed, "Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden."
They report that the Biden administration respects the Times as the paper of record, but see it as failing to meet this specific (encroaching autocracy, my words) challenge to American democracy and is resentful over coverage they see as catering to elites while they are a working class administration, trying to lift up those who have been forgotten.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,567 posts)8. The New York Times notably doesn't refute any quotes of claims in today's story.
dalton99a
(81,592 posts)9. It's the same playbook they used against Hillary Clinton - persistent accusations and insinuations disguised as news
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,567 posts)11. This makes me smile