Why does the New York Times keep calling the left ‘divisive’?
Most of the time, this was a quote.
They quoted David Crowley and a college professor Erik Bleich.
Regading Howard Zinn, but he was indeed divisive. I don’t see anything wrong with the title. Conservative politicians have occasionally proposed or pushed to ban Zinn’s. Some liberal historians also criticized his book.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually like the guy. But he was indeed divisive.
I think it’s crazy to allow people to have guns. But it’s fair to say gun laws are a divisive issue in the United States. The word “divisive” isn’t inherently bad. It’s a description.
The Times has been far too distracted as of late by worries over President Joe Biden’s age, allowing it to steal attention away from the larger and far more serious danger posed by a second Trump administration
Biden’s age was indeed a major concern. If they didn’t cover it, they would have been accused of a cover up.
Their coverage of Trump was extremely good and extensive:
This is the news section of a major newspaper. It’s not a leftist blog.
Which is funny, given that the bloggers - left, right, and center - have consistently been breaking more stories with better researched articles of late. The last straggling remnants of print journalism don’t have the budget to do more than stenography or the clout to do more than lick the taint of whomever is in charge.
Biden’s age was indeed a major concern.
If you treat MAGA Fascism and Biden’s Octogenarianism as equally important, so will your audience.
Their coverage of Trump was extremely good and extensive
It was extremely late and ineffectual.
Meanwhile, for every Trump scandal story, we got three different Transgender Athlete pieces. North of 30 distinct pieces appeared, often at the front page of the Times coverage. These ran in lockstep with the Republican political campaign ads vilifying liberal candidates for support of Title XI and Equal Access laws.
So, after echoing a slew of lies that echoed Republican talking points in a razor thin election all year long, they also popped off a handful of stories critical of the Republican nominee weeks into the early voting period. Cool. Great job.
This was a failure of democracy regardless of outcome. But the dogged assertion that “Americans Voted For This” consistently ignores how many Americans were strictly prohibited from participating, to the point of facing years of jail time, if they even dared submit a provisional ballot.
The news section actually DOES use those words.
For instance:
“Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, U.N. Inquiry Says”*
In a First, Leading Israeli Rights Groups Accuse Israel of Gaza Genocide*
Most of the time, this was a quote.
They quoted David Crowley and a college professor Erik Bleich.
Regading Howard Zinn, but he was indeed divisive. I don’t see anything wrong with the title. Conservative politicians have occasionally proposed or pushed to ban Zinn’s. Some liberal historians also criticized his book.
https://newrepublic.com/article/213778/howard-zinn-biography-simple-story-american-history
Don’t get me wrong. I actually like the guy. But he was indeed divisive.
I think it’s crazy to allow people to have guns. But it’s fair to say gun laws are a divisive issue in the United States. The word “divisive” isn’t inherently bad. It’s a description.
Biden’s age was indeed a major concern. If they didn’t cover it, they would have been accused of a cover up.
Their coverage of Trump was extremely good and extensive:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/trump-scandals.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9lA.JcRG.vJBN_JxcpUEu
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/30/us/politics/trump-administration-criticism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9lA.RUg5.mzo6XR9KTllf
Americans voted for him. That’s their choice.
Which is funny, given that the bloggers - left, right, and center - have consistently been breaking more stories with better researched articles of late. The last straggling remnants of print journalism don’t have the budget to do more than stenography or the clout to do more than lick the taint of whomever is in charge.
If you treat MAGA Fascism and Biden’s Octogenarianism as equally important, so will your audience.
It was extremely late and ineffectual.
Meanwhile, for every Trump scandal story, we got three different Transgender Athlete pieces. North of 30 distinct pieces appeared, often at the front page of the Times coverage. These ran in lockstep with the Republican political campaign ads vilifying liberal candidates for support of Title XI and Equal Access laws.
This, alongside a slew of stories demonizing student protesters which went so far as to call them unwitting agents of the Iranian military.
So, after echoing a slew of lies that echoed Republican talking points in a razor thin election all year long, they also popped off a handful of stories critical of the Republican nominee weeks into the early voting period. Cool. Great job.
Millions of Americans were disenfranchised in 2024.
This was a failure of democracy regardless of outcome. But the dogged assertion that “Americans Voted For This” consistently ignores how many Americans were strictly prohibited from participating, to the point of facing years of jail time, if they even dared submit a provisional ballot.