121 points

Good to see people calling out NYT for their nonsense

permalink
report
reply
30 points

I’m glad they’re doing it. This sane-washing shit drives me crazy. You constantly see headlines saying things like “Trump proposes new policy making guaranteeing sunshine and rainbows for everyone” when in reality, a Trump supporter asked him about lowering food prices and he went in a 15 minute rant that included him saying “and I am the best at sunshine, the sunshine loves me… and don’t even get me started at the rainbows… my communist opponent hates rainbows but not me, the rainbows said ‘sir, you are the best at sunshine and rainbows, more than anyone has ever seen’.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I don’t know if “sane-washing” is the right term. It seems more like they are working as campaign staff to spin a message out of his ramblings.

If they were interested in journalism, they’d say that Trump’s plan to lower food prices is to love rainbows and receive love from sunshine. You know, just stating the facts. The term “sane-washing” to me infers that the entity doing the sane-washing is a journalist and not a campaign staffer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Making incoherent ramblings sound like campaign messages is the exact meaning of “sane-washing”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

Good luck… the Times downplayed the holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_by_the_Times

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Wow I can’t believe they’d normalize a genocide! Hope that never happens again

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

True, although it’s reasonable to think some things orobably have changed in the last 80 years. Everyone involved in the thing you’re talking about has long since died.

It doesn’t mean they don’t currently suck for other reasons, but because someone(s) working at the same place 80 years ago did something isn’t a great one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

NYT played a key role in justifying the Iraq war for liberals. Not a single one of their op-ed writers who spread false propaganda that led to hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths was punished or fired.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think the issue here isn’t that it happened long ago that they’ve had a chance to change.

The issue is that they have not changed…

permalink
report
parent
reply
75 points

Bit late for that tbh

permalink
report
reply
50 points

It’s still worth doing though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Absolutely. Damn I’m so happy to see this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

“That they even asked this question is evidence of the bias — the agenda — in their poll. Who made age an ‘issue’? The credulous Times falling into the right-wing’s projection. This is not journalism. Shameful," Jeff Jarvis posted on Threads. He’s currently the Leonard Tow Professor of Journalism Innovation at the CUNY Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, Darcy pointed out.

Complaints grew more recently after the Times paraphrased Trump’s rambling non-answer while speaking to The Economic Club of New York. In the report, the Times reshaped his language to make sense of what he said. The reality of the comments was that none of it made sense, according to critics.

They were accused of “sane-washing” Trump’s comments.

Fascinating and predictable that the Times (or anyone else) hasn’t mentioned it. Linked posts show pictures etc.

permalink
report
reply
32 points

Archive

Readers left online complaints and cancelled subscriptions before direct protests began. Their demand, according to one civil rights lawyer, is to stop “sane-washing” Trump.

The activists had bright yellow signs with words the Times has avoided using in reports such as “lies,” “convict” and “felon.” The group had one large black banner across the group reading “stop normalizing Trump.”

Fucking beautiful.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Wish I could have joined them. I am disgusted by clickbait media.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 448K

    Comments