They say “print is dead,” but not before it killed irony. Imagine laundering synthetic class animus talking points from the Caddyshack 2 villains in the guise of legitimate news.
“Don’t let those out of touch limousine liberals tell you what to think! They don’t know what it’s like to struggle!”
By all means: report the news, hold powerful people accountable regardless of allegiance... but don’t act like it’s a neutral decision to devote inches to “old man has fancy watch”, “person wears designer clothes in magazine cover shoot,” and, in the case of the guy who shops at the
original Burlington Coat Factory, “mayor participates in a sister city program endorsed by President Ronald Reagan to promote peace during the Cold War” as though they were bona fide political scandals just because some perpetually apoplectic right wing cranks can find nothing better to gripe about. (This isn't to say that there is nothing legitimate to criticize - only that the Republicans crying for "fairness" wanted to slime President Obama over the tan suit and coffee cup salute, not for his coddling of big banks/tech monopolists, predilection for drone warfare, or inability to shutter Gitmo, all of which they favored.)
Deciding what’s worth covering is an editorial decision, and choosing to give “equal time” to specious reactionary grievances regardless of what’s going on in the world is an editorial slant, not a level playing field.
Thirty to forty million Americans face eminent threat of eviction during a pandemic, and here they are trying to gin up outrage clicks on Facebook over a something something Times best-selling author’s possession of a $2,500 exercise bike. Had it been a Techno-Gym, surely that would’ve been grounds for impeachment.
It's especially rich (no pun intended) coming from a media outlet headquartered in its own building in mid-town Manhattan, within days of them
giving that same Peloton bicycle a positive review in their online affiliate link generator, "Wirecutter."
The NYT is like a movie studio that funds "prestige pictures" to put a halo over all their offensive, braindead blockbusters. They sell investigative journalism and tote bags for the subs, clickbait/affiliate shilling for the digital revenue.
I called Trump out throughout his presidency.
The word you're looking for here is "supported." You
supported Donald Trump throughout his presidency.
That you managed to eep out some simpering "I've always said he could do better with some of the things he says and does" posts dripping with Droopy Dog energy over the course of his historically disastrous term hardly qualifies as "calling him out." You may as well have whispered your criticism into your pillow at night.
What you couldn't defend, you merely dismissed as tolerable imperfections. (Until the moment he lost, at which point it was all just a terrible "mistake.")
You like to pick and choose when you take my word for it. When I said I supported Trump you believed me. Now that I say I don’t you conveniently distrust it. Either I’m a liar or I’m not.
Oh?
Did I
say you were a liar?
How else could you know?
Here again you give him the benefit of the doubt with his motives.
When did he start using it? Let me guess: you don't remember and you won't do the research. That's everyone else's job.
And the Crime Bill was a valid critique.
The crime bill was a valid reason to oppose Biden's candidacy in the primaries you didn't vote in. It's not a valid excuse to oppose his candidacy in a general election against an overt racist who ran a "law and order" campaign, called for state violence against those who protested police brutality, supported the death penalty even for drug offenders, refused to accept the innocence of the Central Park Five even after their exoneration, supported private prisons, used family separation and forced sterilization as an immigration deterrent, disrespected late civil rights icon John Lewis, and tapped WILLIAM "THE CASE FOR MORE INCARCERATION" BARR to head the DOJ. But you already know that. You just used it as chaff to give yourself cover.
If you actually cared about criminal justice reform as much as you'd like us to believe, you would've voted like it.
I posted jobs reports, without comment.
Let's not pretend that the posting of links in general is performed without intent. You posted links in service to your narrative and in support of your worldview. You're accusing
IATT
of doing the same.
Remember this refrain? "Was anyone convicted?" That's not a "taunt?"
If you're tired of getting dunked on, might I suggest that you've been defending the wrong goal, and far less ably than you'd prefer to believe.
I can’t imagine how any of this would be self-serving for me.
Really? You can't imagine how constantly attempting to disguise cynical opportunism as noble might benefit you? Perhaps that's because you don't have to imagine it.
It has spiraled despite me explaining that it had nothing to do with defending Trump in the very next post.
Why would you even mention that the article didn't use the term "lie" in your response if
not to needle the poster whose "taunts" so clearly have begun to irritate you?
Both his post and yours seemed like an obvious callback to your longstanding dispute over previous attempts to deflect/minimize right-wing "mistruthfulness" via the Costanza doctrine.
