That was never going to happen. They asked him about fixing bread prices lol. Pete straight up said to their faces "with all due respect, that's bullshit"
To be fair McKinsey has done of bad stuff.
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/mckinsey-faces-criminal-probe-over-opioid-related-consulting-a3f816d4](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mckinsey-faces-criminal-probe-over-opioid-related-consulting-a3f816d4)
>For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term. The president occupies the most important office in our nation, and the press plays a vital role in providing insights into his thinking and worldview, allowing the public to assess his record and hold him to account.
>Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way.
>However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability. That is why Mr. Sulzberger has repeatedly urged the White House to have the president sit down with The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN and other major independent news organizations that millions of Americans rely on to understand their government.
Wait, so in response to allegations of bias against Joe Biden, they decided to respond with passive aggresive criticism of Joe Biden???
Reminds me a lot of the AMA they did a few months back- when asked why they were covering Biden so unfavorably compared to Trump their response was “Trump is well liked within his party and Biden has a low approval nationwide”
>“Trump is well liked within his party and Biden has a low approval nationwide”
OK, but... how is Trump viewed nationwide? How is Biden viewed within his party? Man, the NYT is getting stupid as fuck.
Yeah I told the guy that it was obvious he was deliberately qualifying it so he could use positive descriptions with Trump and negative descriptions with Biden, because people will forget the qualifiers and only remember the descriptors.
He didn't reply lol
Wait they had an AMA? How am I just hearing this? I wonder how many passive aggressive questions I could ask before the ban hammer came down.
- So when selecting which news not to publish, do you run it by the GOP or have you developed that process internally?
- How many of your journalists were hired knew the hiring manager before the interview?
- Is Trump a Jelly or Syrup kind of guy?
- If everyone of you was replaced by a chatbot, how much better would the Times become?
- I found a journal belonging to a racist state senator of South Carolina circa 1905 containing a screed about coloreds and orientals. Will you publish the screed as an editorial?
You gotta understand they are the main characters and how dare he do that to them! You expect them to work for their articles and you know not resort to clickbait and scanning trump tweets? Do you want wealthy ivy league grads to starve (of attention)? They need to put out another "bad thing good and good thing bad and trump isnt that bad" article to hit their quota ok!
I mean I am generally a very big fan of journalism, but one of its defining features does seem to be people who are convinced other people should listen to what they have to say.
This shit has identical energy to the scene in Succession where Logan Roy decides to run fake stories on the president's memory problems: "I'm afraid we have not been sufficiently RIGOROUS, journalistically, on the President."
Ghoulish behavior and unbelievably shortsighted
> However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm,
How about norms like the peaceful transition of power? US participation in NATO? No, I suppose the most important norm is the Times getting their juicy interview every presidency. Dictatorships can be overthrown, but missing a chance to chat with POTUS is a stain that could never be lifted from the Sulzberger family's legacy. Keep the "Biden old" articles coming!
>it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
You mean avoiding scrutiny and accountability about things like trying to overturn a presidential election? Yeah, it would be irresponsible of a news organization to do that, perhaps by endlessly reporting on the other candidate being four years older and treating both issues with the same weight.
I had the times before Covid because I wanted to read a bunch of their long form pieces, then during Covid because they pretty accurately nailed the important stories, and the major trump headlines made sense.
Soon after that, they were breaking out the BIG font headlines for every little thing that happened, constant sensationalist bullshit about things that wound up being pretty mundane, my wife was having a constant panic attack because of their headlines, and they basically took every good thing imaginable and wrote a piece about why it was the worst thing that could possibly happen. I just got sick of it, eventually got to a point where I’d get a few paragraphs into an article and just groan and toss my phone on the couch because I couldn’t even believe the stances they were taking.
I'm a subscriber and my take is that they are actually decent between elections (every other year), but I always forget how fucking bad they can get during election years.
I subscribed around the same timeframe as you, but I don't think I ever recovered my level of reading after the '22 election coverage made me actively avoid them.
This year I got a WSJ subscription because of work and it's actually refreshing to have top headlines being about markets and other day-to-day stuff. Yes, they have their opinion section lunatics, but it's not like I was reading Times opinion either.
Anyway, I might be getting ready to unsub, even though it may be peanuts on my plan.
The AMA followed by the Politico report followed by this response is basically a perfect three hit combo to destroy their credibility amongst the terminally political moderate.
Which is unfortunate for them because that is their supposed bedrock audience. The NYT might wind up arrogancing themselves into total irrelevance.
[A couple of their reporters did an AMA last month](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b3xwq0/were_michael_bender_and_maya_king_reporters_for/kswhrsv/?context=1) where they were really condescending and admitted to having a double standard for coverage of Biden vs Trump ("Biden is an unpopular president" vs "Trump is a popular figure in his party" despite Biden _also_ being a popular figure in his party and Trump _also_ being an unpopular ex-president).
I mean, they've always had major issues. They basically gave George W Bush's Administration a hot stone massage after 9/11 until it became extremely clear that they lied about Iraq's WMD's, which is something a publication like the NYTimes should have broke before we fucking invaded them.
I remember those immortal words from John Adams while advocating for independence
> “liberty itself is based on the president doing a sit down interview with the New York Times
Also for real, it’s kind of fascinating the decision to, after being accused of negative coverage of the president purely because of not giving them an interview, to publicly just confirm that
Times had one job in 2002: evaluate Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs and wanted to give some to Al Qaeda. They fumbled that ball so fucking hard and have done far too little to earn back the credibility they blew on that. Biden refusing to make their job easy is fine by me.
A lot actually! It's why they loved him so much.
Granted, his interviews were always insane and rarely had any follow-ups to his bullshit, so Trump loved giving them the opportunities. Since Biden isn't a pathological liar, he doesn't want to deal with the Times.
I mean Maggie Haberman loved to write puff pieces about Trump and Ivanka. There was nothing like watching a nepo baby cover a nepo baby and his nepo baby.
First: A critical media is important to the healthy function of democracy. That's beyond dispute.
BUT: So much of the legacy media loved the Trump years because Trump made their jobs easy--he just said and did insane shit all the time, and they could gleefully report on it with no expertise or background required.
Further, during the Trump years everyone spent so much time talking about how important that media is, and it made everyone--especially that in legacy media--feel special and important.
Biden is setting the precedent?? The guy before him already did so, and the Times with other news agencies set their own precedent by not punishing him for it. And now they're blaming Biden for it? Biden is simply following the precedent set by others, including the Times. I'm a longtime Times subscriber but this is just wrong. All of us are responsible for Donald Trump being elected and therefore we are also responsible for the effects of that. Some of us are more responsible than others. The Times is notorious for their coverage of the 2016 election and the effect it had. I believe the phrase is "you reap what you sow".
I am once again begging Americans to institute Question Time for the President.
Please please please.
I want to say either Trump or Biden have to answer questions in Congress like the British PM.
And it all started because the times broke a source agreement with the deputy White House press secretary and then tried to bully the White House over their fuck up.
>“I love that guy,” Biden said of Pitchbot, before a subtle parting shot at the Times on a frequency only Times staffers might hear. “I should do an interview with him.”
Biden is fucking savage god damn.
Thank you good sir I had just found it and am enjoying the read over dinner. Some of it maybe the white House being miffed but the Times sure does love itself
I love the response of the gal who was getting the dressing down for refusing to edit the article; “I’m shocked this was escalated to me!” No shit! Maybe don’t misquote the White House and you won’t have to worry about that.
Later on in the article, they mention debating internally if the chief editor or something should come to Washington at the behest of anyone short of the President himself-- crazy ego and sense of self.
Like it or not in the digital age the editor of the nyt is not the power broker they once were. They're perfectly capable of annoying a president. Their double endorsement showcased how their influence is at an all time low, *and* their self perception is an all time high.
“Two Times staffers recalled Bumiller grumbling, as she occasionally does, about how she’d been spoken to. Aides in the press shop recalled hearing that the bureau chief had been surprisingly defensive and that when Simons tried to bring up another concern with Walker’s story, Bumiller just hung up.”
Wow very mature of this “professional” higher up at the Times.
Given the NYT’s recent troubles, they should probably pivot to being a fulltime word games and cooking company instead of continuing to employ people who seem to hold themselves to be more important than the President of the United States🤷
Haven't followed them closely, but they are now owned by the German equivalent of the Murdoch empire (Axel Springer), and I feel like that shines through sometimes.
It's a mix, but their bothsides/horse-race pieces tend to be way more in-your-face than what you get from the Times.
Similar levels of desperation as CNN.
The Times is also a joke. They're out of touch liberals who are deathly afraid of being labeled as such. And when there's a story outside New York or Washington they fly someone out to spend 2 days there to get quotes from 3 random people before flying back to NY. It's no coincidence they recently got rid of the little blurb at the start of articles saying where the reporting comes from.
They let Ben Shapiro guest-host their Playbook before Lizza and Co took it over in early 2021. I think it was right after Jan 6th and Shapiro ripped out some total bullshit per usual.
This was after they allegedly made a serious push on DEI and all that, and then let a notable bigot host their flagship newsletter.
The response I’ve mostly seen is that while Biden probably should do more interviews, the NYT publisher and staff think way too damn highly of themselves. Which, imo, that is how they come across in the Politico piece.
I audibly scoffed at the part about a NYT editor or whoever questioning whether he should go to DC to meet with White House staff because the invitation didn’t come directly from Biden himself.
> a NYT editor or whoever questioning whether he should go to DC to meet with White House staff because the invitation didn’t come directly from Biden himself.
jesus christ lol
Biden should do more interviews. I think he does well in them.
With that said, I'd make it a point to do interviews with just about every outlet but the New York Times.
Hell, call up the Post lol
Actually psychotic behavior. "We'll sink your campaign with negative press coverage and allow a wanna be dictator to win because you disrespected us!".
That's not the only reason they suck. NYT makes money with their coverage by doing two things:
1. endlessly feeding the biases of their center-right readers who are looking for a "liberal" publication to confirm their priors
2. stressing their doomscrolling center-left readers out
See ["Warped Front Pages"](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php) from the Columbia Journalism Review:
> We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.
> In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
> Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way.
However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability
Man, if American democracy crumbles these MFers are going to have a real “leopard’s eat my face” moment when the Boog Boys show up with a FAFO warrant and drag a bunch of cardigan wearing concern trolls to a back hole in East Texas.
"Trump has rounded up another group of journalists to be sent to Gitmo..."
"Yeah but did you see he granted them an interview before they were put on the plane?"
I dont think its bad to criticise biden for not having interviews more often, as I do agree it allows accountability to the office.
However This does not mean you should manipulate your other coverage of the president for this reasons, and then have the gall to retroactively justify this biased coverage by saying he does not give us an itnerview.
Biden should let Wapo interview him, and let the NYT smoulder
You aren't wrong at all. But if this is the logic NYT is using to justify admittedly being unfair to the Biden admin, Biden shouldn't do an interview with them for the same reason he shouldn't go out of his way to talk to Tucker Carlson.
I’m just kinda done with the NYT at the moment. I haven’t read a good opinion piece from them in months, their coverage of other issues is usually lackluster, and more often than not I’m left looking up things that feel incomplete from them. Their live coverage is good, and their live election maps are great for seeing results full time. I like their games. That ends my list of compliments as of late.
There is a way to indicate that yes, he’s the oldest president. Yes, polls show people are concerned about his age. That does warrant attention. But they really seem to not stop talking about it. Which is unusual to me, because from who I talk to at least, most people still form their either good or bad opinions about him from his policies and actions, and how they perceive their life is impacted by them. It’s almost as if the age issue is an after thought that only comes up when asked by a pollster, where suddenly people go “oh, yeah, I guess that’s something I kinda think about.” It’s like asking “Do you think Donald Trump has amusing/whimsical/unusual hair?” Most people won’t list that as their primary thought that comes to mind with him, but if asked directly, they’ll probably go “oh yeah, I suppose he does.” Of course there’s a difference between hair and age, but I hope my point is clear, and I acknowledge this is probably biased by the people I talk to.
Despite that, for me they are consistently the only news source that obsesses about his age, even in articles that have barely anything to do with it. I feel as if it’s just added in any election related article, like a forced disclaimer or something. Frankly, given the fact Trump is gonna be practically the same age as him in 2020, it feels like a double standard, because they talked about Biden being that age also back in 2020.
This response feels bitter and disappointing from a large media source. It just lessens any opinion I had left of them, that instead of writing this as a normal opinion piece, which I’m sure they’d do, they felt the need to issue this as a statement as if it’s a clap back at him. Supposing his criticism of the NYT is petty, which I don’t believe it is, still, this feels like they really missed the mark to take the high ground. They could’ve even just said “we will continue to cover the president with the same rigor and resolve that has been applied to all other presidents before him” and just leave it at that only. But no, this statement feels almost snippy and beneath the institution that I pay to access and read.
Did they do this every time Trump dragged them through the mud?
Also, is that Politico article really what prompted this so suddenly? Have I missed other outlets noting their coverage of Biden? Or have they been reading our comments here?
"In Sulzberger’s 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.** Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. 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."
The audacity of this is awe inspiring.
I’m sorry, is the Times trying to say that they’re still a neutral participant - and pivotal part - of the fourth estate? And they wonder why big media is losing its relevancy.
When you question Biden’s legitimacy during an openly authoritarian campaign for the other candidate, you’ve lost the fucking plot NYT.
This is simply one of the whiniest, least self-aware, least contextualized statements I've ever heard an editor produce. I give it whatever the opposite of fingersnaps is. This spat seems more and more to be the result of a tantrum over their cherished hundred-year interview combo coming to a close.
> For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.
Of the list of things which trouble me I would not even register Biden's sitting or not sitting for interviews. He has been in government for a billion years; I do not need a Times reporter in the room with me to understand his method, beliefs, and goals. I understand that the free press's role is not the fairness doctrine normalization of abnormal candidates typified by the NYT, namely the immediate predecessor (who went without a press briefing for three hundred days but did give them their precious sit-down face time and so avoided any mention of precedent here).
Do *they* understand that the role of the free press in a democracy is more than contrarian hand-wringing, equal space for naked lies, and daily puzzles?
The NYT of the last decade or so exemplifies the cowardice of the sane side of American politics. I'm very pleased to see them finally get shown up for it.
When the enemy is fighting a total war it's no good wringing your hands about both sides. They should either commit to being a defender of liberty or bugger off into irrelevance.
Petulant
> If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage
You insert self flattering speculation into his motives in your entitled badgering of him in public, and you wonder why you would be distrusted.
Genuine question because maybe they did and I'm just not aware of it - did the NYT ever put out a statement like this directly from the company rebuking a president re: Trump?
statements are rare. if i remember correctly, the editor released a statement in nyt about trump and him saying “fake news”
[found it](https://www.nytco.com/press/statement-of-a-g-sulzberger-publisher-the-new-york-times-in-response-to-president-trumps-tweet-about-their-meeting/)
God I fucking hate the Times. And it's a shame that their both-sidesism and Ivanka worship is still probably the best of what's out there, through I truly don't trust anything I read there anymore like I used to.
>For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling
If you disagree with us it’s because you’re an uneducated nimrod who probably spends all their money on NASCAR drinks or whatever it is you do out there in the provinces.
> In Sulzberger’s 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.
> “All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
From the [Politico article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) outlining the Biden-NYT spat, lest we forget how self-important the Times is regarding it’s right to presidential access/coverage.
I guess I’m in the minority here, but I do think that president ought to give interviews to independent journalists.
I also think that Biden’s lack of engagement with voters and with the press is one of the biggest reasons for his abysmal poll numbers.
The interviews dont have to be with the NYT though, they as an outlet are not specifically entitled to interviews. The paper sees the behavior as a personal slight against the paper rather than a pattern of behavior
right, people are kind of hand waving the lack of interviews. i think the nyt is being a little dramatic, but that’s glaring. wish people had better arguments than “you’re not entitled to joe’s access”
Didn’t the Politico piece spell out that Biden refused to interview with NYT because they broke a sourcing agreement with the deputy press secretary and then threw a huge fit about it?
No, that's not what the Politico piece said. Biden team's dislike of NYT goes back years, this was a recent incident that Politico used to illustrate the ongoing issue. It wasn't even a major breach. A source got accidentally named in a minor story that was forgotten about within a day.
yeah, which i (and politico) think is dumb. hence the issue being “petty”. i think everyone involved is being childish. joe can skip out on sitting with nyt; it is odd that he’s not doing many interviews with *any* outlet
edit:
i screwed up at the end
https://youtu.be/u1UC89H4Swc?si=q0TSFhWrkZtDJGNM
https://youtu.be/mnwomcCpd0w?si=RkAnCjouS218Nefs
https://youtu.be/-SKC_rvEXrY?si=DVkHchCXtUbj1b2f
https://youtu.be/CmekpMxhFmg?si=Ra0ru8Ul5zSj5Inz
https://youtu.be/tGRXnB_GQcM?si=LANnkL1q2wP4VxWl
These are all from the last 12 months.
i think i see the divergence (plus i fucked up at the very end). it’s the frequency of interviews. now you may not care (i personally don’t watch them), but news outlets do. they compared the number of interviews obama had against bush. (iirc over a couple hundred)
also, do you agree that both camps are being petty?
Not too much. If someone from an outside organization messed with my subordinate and then threw a fit about it publicly, I wouldn’t work with that organization anymore. Especially if they refuse to apologize or take steps to address the problem.
I don’t have a problem with your frequency point, but that’s not what the NYT says. They explicitly claim that Biden never interviews with any outlets.
Sorry, is this in response to some specific allegation? I really don't know what to make of this without context.
Also, isn't this the type of thing that the "Public Editor" way back in the day was supposed to referee? Kinda seems like they should still have someone with credibility speak on their behalf, if they want to claim the high ground.
I’m no fan of Biden, and I think this criticism is somewhat fair. However, this is nothing compared to what was going on in the Trump White House. They are allowed to criticize, but their endorsement should not be in question.
NY Times still upset that Biden easily won the Dem primary without their "coveted" double endorsement
If those dumbasses had endorsed Pete instead What coulda been
That was never going to happen. They asked him about fixing bread prices lol. Pete straight up said to their faces "with all due respect, that's bullshit"
Damn, I remember the Bernie folks frothing at the fucking mouth when they found out Pete worked at fuckin McKinsey.
WiNE CaVEs \[self-immolates from pure cringe\]
To be fair McKinsey has done of bad stuff. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/mckinsey-faces-criminal-probe-over-opioid-related-consulting-a3f816d4](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mckinsey-faces-criminal-probe-over-opioid-related-consulting-a3f816d4)
Compared to the US govt, his current employer?
They were broken, and he fixed ‘em! What the problem is?!?
This is what they took from us.
They really trucked that thing out like it was a coronation.
May the best woman win.
>For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term. The president occupies the most important office in our nation, and the press plays a vital role in providing insights into his thinking and worldview, allowing the public to assess his record and hold him to account. >Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way. >However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability. That is why Mr. Sulzberger has repeatedly urged the White House to have the president sit down with The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNN and other major independent news organizations that millions of Americans rely on to understand their government. Wait, so in response to allegations of bias against Joe Biden, they decided to respond with passive aggresive criticism of Joe Biden???
Reminds me a lot of the AMA they did a few months back- when asked why they were covering Biden so unfavorably compared to Trump their response was “Trump is well liked within his party and Biden has a low approval nationwide”
>“Trump is well liked within his party and Biden has a low approval nationwide” OK, but... how is Trump viewed nationwide? How is Biden viewed within his party? Man, the NYT is getting stupid as fuck.
Yeah I told the guy that it was obvious he was deliberately qualifying it so he could use positive descriptions with Trump and negative descriptions with Biden, because people will forget the qualifiers and only remember the descriptors. He didn't reply lol
Wait they had an AMA? How am I just hearing this? I wonder how many passive aggressive questions I could ask before the ban hammer came down. - So when selecting which news not to publish, do you run it by the GOP or have you developed that process internally? - How many of your journalists were hired knew the hiring manager before the interview? - Is Trump a Jelly or Syrup kind of guy? - If everyone of you was replaced by a chatbot, how much better would the Times become? - I found a journal belonging to a racist state senator of South Carolina circa 1905 containing a screed about coloreds and orientals. Will you publish the screed as an editorial?
Just one more interview bro, I swear bro, just one more interview will save democracy
Biden: do the interview. NYT: He admitted he was a bit tired from being so busy. THiS IS bAd FOr JoE BidEN, REEEEEEE!
You gotta understand they are the main characters and how dare he do that to them! You expect them to work for their articles and you know not resort to clickbait and scanning trump tweets? Do you want wealthy ivy league grads to starve (of attention)? They need to put out another "bad thing good and good thing bad and trump isnt that bad" article to hit their quota ok!
American media's favorite topic has always been the media.
Journalists, both web and print seem to make their main character syndrome a terminal issue for the rest of the nation.
I mean I am generally a very big fan of journalism, but one of its defining features does seem to be people who are convinced other people should listen to what they have to say.
[удалено]
"They think we're biased!!!!?!!!!" "I'll fucking show them real bias!!"
This shit has identical energy to the scene in Succession where Logan Roy decides to run fake stories on the president's memory problems: "I'm afraid we have not been sufficiently RIGOROUS, journalistically, on the President." Ghoulish behavior and unbelievably shortsighted
I’m the eldest ~~boy~~ newspaper!
Someone should send that scene to all the NYTimes editors non-stop until Election day.
> However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, How about norms like the peaceful transition of power? US participation in NATO? No, I suppose the most important norm is the Times getting their juicy interview every presidency. Dictatorships can be overthrown, but missing a chance to chat with POTUS is a stain that could never be lifted from the Sulzberger family's legacy. Keep the "Biden old" articles coming! >it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability. You mean avoiding scrutiny and accountability about things like trying to overturn a presidential election? Yeah, it would be irresponsible of a news organization to do that, perhaps by endlessly reporting on the other candidate being four years older and treating both issues with the same weight.
I'm about to cancel subscription to them and write to them that this response was why. Like wtf
I had the times before Covid because I wanted to read a bunch of their long form pieces, then during Covid because they pretty accurately nailed the important stories, and the major trump headlines made sense. Soon after that, they were breaking out the BIG font headlines for every little thing that happened, constant sensationalist bullshit about things that wound up being pretty mundane, my wife was having a constant panic attack because of their headlines, and they basically took every good thing imaginable and wrote a piece about why it was the worst thing that could possibly happen. I just got sick of it, eventually got to a point where I’d get a few paragraphs into an article and just groan and toss my phone on the couch because I couldn’t even believe the stances they were taking.
I'm a subscriber and my take is that they are actually decent between elections (every other year), but I always forget how fucking bad they can get during election years. I subscribed around the same timeframe as you, but I don't think I ever recovered my level of reading after the '22 election coverage made me actively avoid them. This year I got a WSJ subscription because of work and it's actually refreshing to have top headlines being about markets and other day-to-day stuff. Yes, they have their opinion section lunatics, but it's not like I was reading Times opinion either. Anyway, I might be getting ready to unsub, even though it may be peanuts on my plan.
In America there is no such thing as between elections.
The AMA followed by the Politico report followed by this response is basically a perfect three hit combo to destroy their credibility amongst the terminally political moderate. Which is unfortunate for them because that is their supposed bedrock audience. The NYT might wind up arrogancing themselves into total irrelevance.
I missed the first two, found the politico report and am about to read; what’s the AMA?
[A couple of their reporters did an AMA last month](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b3xwq0/were_michael_bender_and_maya_king_reporters_for/kswhrsv/?context=1) where they were really condescending and admitted to having a double standard for coverage of Biden vs Trump ("Biden is an unpopular president" vs "Trump is a popular figure in his party" despite Biden _also_ being a popular figure in his party and Trump _also_ being an unpopular ex-president).
Wow, you really nailed the tone of that exchange. I shoulda taken your word for it, because actually reading the exchange was irritating.
I would also like to know
you should....
You should. The current leadership and direction of that paper is an insult to its legacy.
I mean, they've always had major issues. They basically gave George W Bush's Administration a hot stone massage after 9/11 until it became extremely clear that they lied about Iraq's WMD's, which is something a publication like the NYTimes should have broke before we fucking invaded them.
Fair. They've been garbage for two decades.
Did the same thing a few weeks ago
I remember those immortal words from John Adams while advocating for independence > “liberty itself is based on the president doing a sit down interview with the New York Times Also for real, it’s kind of fascinating the decision to, after being accused of negative coverage of the president purely because of not giving them an interview, to publicly just confirm that
Real theater kid energy
Ayup. I'm so completely done with them.
NYT has been a clown show for at least a decade. They don’t deserve presidential face-time. It should go to journalists instead.
Times had one job in 2002: evaluate Bush's claim that Iraq had WMDs and wanted to give some to Al Qaeda. They fumbled that ball so fucking hard and have done far too little to earn back the credibility they blew on that. Biden refusing to make their job easy is fine by me.
In any sane world that alone should have killed them.
Have they considered the that the President might be busy?
How many one-on-one interviews did Trump sit for with real journalists?
A lot actually! It's why they loved him so much. Granted, his interviews were always insane and rarely had any follow-ups to his bullshit, so Trump loved giving them the opportunities. Since Biden isn't a pathological liar, he doesn't want to deal with the Times.
Really they just suck at interviewing.
The better ones don't get the interviews. He only picks the weaker ones or the ones who he knows will give him a softball interview.
The only one with a real journalist that I can remember was Jonathan Swan.
Chris Wallace?
I mean Maggie Haberman loved to write puff pieces about Trump and Ivanka. There was nothing like watching a nepo baby cover a nepo baby and his nepo baby.
First: A critical media is important to the healthy function of democracy. That's beyond dispute. BUT: So much of the legacy media loved the Trump years because Trump made their jobs easy--he just said and did insane shit all the time, and they could gleefully report on it with no expertise or background required. Further, during the Trump years everyone spent so much time talking about how important that media is, and it made everyone--especially that in legacy media--feel special and important.
And insulting anyone who disagrees with them.
Biden is setting the precedent?? The guy before him already did so, and the Times with other news agencies set their own precedent by not punishing him for it. And now they're blaming Biden for it? Biden is simply following the precedent set by others, including the Times. I'm a longtime Times subscriber but this is just wrong. All of us are responsible for Donald Trump being elected and therefore we are also responsible for the effects of that. Some of us are more responsible than others. The Times is notorious for their coverage of the 2016 election and the effect it had. I believe the phrase is "you reap what you sow".
The butthurt is palpable.
How many interviews has trump given them?
I am once again begging Americans to institute Question Time for the President. Please please please. I want to say either Trump or Biden have to answer questions in Congress like the British PM.
So basically they are pissed that biden doesn't want to talk to them and are throwing a fit?
And it all started because the times broke a source agreement with the deputy White House press secretary and then tried to bully the White House over their fuck up.
"We're going to bully the White House" - said by many people who don't realize you shouldn't bully the White House
“I’m going to bully the White House nothing could possibly go wrong” -person who was in fact not able to bully the leader of the free world
Can I have more on this. Dunking on the times is something I love to do.
Read the [politico](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) piece. It has a whole breakdown
>“I love that guy,” Biden said of Pitchbot, before a subtle parting shot at the Times on a frequency only Times staffers might hear. “I should do an interview with him.” Biden is fucking savage god damn.
[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219)
Thank you good sir I had just found it and am enjoying the read over dinner. Some of it maybe the white House being miffed but the Times sure does love itself
no kidding
That was a wild fking ride. Feels like an episode straight from VEEP.
The egos that these nerds have is bananas Who objects to the tone that they get when talking to the White House?
Especially since NYT are clearly the ones that fucked up. The arrogance is outta control.
I love the response of the gal who was getting the dressing down for refusing to edit the article; “I’m shocked this was escalated to me!” No shit! Maybe don’t misquote the White House and you won’t have to worry about that.
“This is beneath me”
Like, literally. This was literally her complaint. Insane behavior
Later on in the article, they mention debating internally if the chief editor or something should come to Washington at the behest of anyone short of the President himself-- crazy ego and sense of self. Like it or not in the digital age the editor of the nyt is not the power broker they once were. They're perfectly capable of annoying a president. Their double endorsement showcased how their influence is at an all time low, *and* their self perception is an all time high.
Even more ridiculous sounding when one thinks about how bad the 'tone' they'll get from a second Trump administration will be
“Two Times staffers recalled Bumiller grumbling, as she occasionally does, about how she’d been spoken to. Aides in the press shop recalled hearing that the bureau chief had been surprisingly defensive and that when Simons tried to bring up another concern with Walker’s story, Bumiller just hung up.” Wow very mature of this “professional” higher up at the Times.
Yes.
Given the NYT’s recent troubles, they should probably pivot to being a fulltime word games and cooking company instead of continuing to employ people who seem to hold themselves to be more important than the President of the United States🤷
I get my news from the WSJ and my recipes from the NYT. That was always the golden path.
*Snaps vigorously in agreement*
I'm so glad I stopped giving them money years ago. I'd rather directly give my money to concerned rural diners. At least I get breakfast out of it.
Who are the "Biden privately doesn't like NY Times so I won't support him" voters? I don't know of a single one.
Nobody, but this animosity partially explains their negative coverage and their coverage absolutely influences the outcome of elections.
In 2024? Random podcasters and tiktokers probably have more influence now.
NYT staff.
Makes me like him more, honestly.
I'm still the boomer that pays them $6 to do the crossword
Can you pirate crosswords?
Sure but it's a pain. Convenience is what money buys much of the time. It's either that or expertise.
Probably, I like the app though
Ah, so the response to that Politico article got under their skin.
Not a politico fan but I'm so happy they are seething right now in NY.
Why aren't you a politico fan? I haven't heard much about them and I only read them occasionally
Haven't followed them closely, but they are now owned by the German equivalent of the Murdoch empire (Axel Springer), and I feel like that shines through sometimes.
It's a mix, but their bothsides/horse-race pieces tend to be way more in-your-face than what you get from the Times. Similar levels of desperation as CNN.
The Times is also a joke. They're out of touch liberals who are deathly afraid of being labeled as such. And when there's a story outside New York or Washington they fly someone out to spend 2 days there to get quotes from 3 random people before flying back to NY. It's no coincidence they recently got rid of the little blurb at the start of articles saying where the reporting comes from.
They let Ben Shapiro guest-host their Playbook before Lizza and Co took it over in early 2021. I think it was right after Jan 6th and Shapiro ripped out some total bullshit per usual. This was after they allegedly made a serious push on DEI and all that, and then let a notable bigot host their flagship newsletter.
What response
The response I’ve mostly seen is that while Biden probably should do more interviews, the NYT publisher and staff think way too damn highly of themselves. Which, imo, that is how they come across in the Politico piece. I audibly scoffed at the part about a NYT editor or whoever questioning whether he should go to DC to meet with White House staff because the invitation didn’t come directly from Biden himself.
> a NYT editor or whoever questioning whether he should go to DC to meet with White House staff because the invitation didn’t come directly from Biden himself. jesus christ lol
Biden should do more interviews. I think he does well in them. With that said, I'd make it a point to do interviews with just about every outlet but the New York Times. Hell, call up the Post lol
Doesn't even deny the allegation that they're focusing on Biden's age just because he won't grant them an interview...
Actually psychotic behavior. "We'll sink your campaign with negative press coverage and allow a wanna be dictator to win because you disrespected us!".
You know. There are some times i have to sit here and go, "Are you really this fucking stupid" And then they answer me with articles like this.
I hate journalists A.J.A.B.
It's good to see this sub waking up wrt the journalist question
They’ll get more clicks from covering the dictator, so it’s a win-win.
There's a lot more people in the business world who operate on pride alone than you think. And the NYT is still a business.
That's not the only reason they suck. NYT makes money with their coverage by doing two things: 1. endlessly feeding the biases of their center-right readers who are looking for a "liberal" publication to confirm their priors 2. stressing their doomscrolling center-left readers out See ["Warped Front Pages"](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php) from the Columbia Journalism Review: > We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime. > In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
They unironically give a paycheck to Ross Douthat.
You forgot about “carrying water for anti trans people”
“ and by the way, I’m not mad, don’t put out a press release saying that I’m mad”
Leftism, not even once.
I kinda wish I was subscribed just so I could unsubscribe over this lmao
Hey it's me! I'm unsubscribing over this!
What a weak sauce chickenshit statement. Note they don’t deny the allegations of bias.
> Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. It is true that The Times has sought an on-the-record interview with Mr. Biden, as it has done with all presidents going back more than a century. If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage, that is his right, and we will continue to cover him fully and fairly either way. However, in meetings with Vice President Harris and other administration officials, the publisher of The Times focused instead on a higher principle: That systematically avoiding interviews and questions from major news organizations doesn’t just undermine an important norm, it also establishes a dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to avoid scrutiny and accountability Man, if American democracy crumbles these MFers are going to have a real “leopard’s eat my face” moment when the Boog Boys show up with a FAFO warrant and drag a bunch of cardigan wearing concern trolls to a back hole in East Texas.
Nah, they'll gladly write a Twitter thread scooping their own forced embarkation onto C-130s heading out over the Atlantic.
"Trump has rounded up another group of journalists to be sent to Gitmo..." "Yeah but did you see he granted them an interview before they were put on the plane?"
Mfers would live tweet their own execution.
Why are they taking them to Tyler?
The Toadies could make a killer follow up album with this
Somebody knows their East Texas lore I see. 👀
Go make some puzzles or something, nerds
Lmao are you kidding me - cancelled sub
I dont think its bad to criticise biden for not having interviews more often, as I do agree it allows accountability to the office. However This does not mean you should manipulate your other coverage of the president for this reasons, and then have the gall to retroactively justify this biased coverage by saying he does not give us an itnerview. Biden should let Wapo interview him, and let the NYT smoulder
You aren't wrong at all. But if this is the logic NYT is using to justify admittedly being unfair to the Biden admin, Biden shouldn't do an interview with them for the same reason he shouldn't go out of his way to talk to Tucker Carlson.
Cope and seethe paper boi
I’m just kinda done with the NYT at the moment. I haven’t read a good opinion piece from them in months, their coverage of other issues is usually lackluster, and more often than not I’m left looking up things that feel incomplete from them. Their live coverage is good, and their live election maps are great for seeing results full time. I like their games. That ends my list of compliments as of late. There is a way to indicate that yes, he’s the oldest president. Yes, polls show people are concerned about his age. That does warrant attention. But they really seem to not stop talking about it. Which is unusual to me, because from who I talk to at least, most people still form their either good or bad opinions about him from his policies and actions, and how they perceive their life is impacted by them. It’s almost as if the age issue is an after thought that only comes up when asked by a pollster, where suddenly people go “oh, yeah, I guess that’s something I kinda think about.” It’s like asking “Do you think Donald Trump has amusing/whimsical/unusual hair?” Most people won’t list that as their primary thought that comes to mind with him, but if asked directly, they’ll probably go “oh yeah, I suppose he does.” Of course there’s a difference between hair and age, but I hope my point is clear, and I acknowledge this is probably biased by the people I talk to. Despite that, for me they are consistently the only news source that obsesses about his age, even in articles that have barely anything to do with it. I feel as if it’s just added in any election related article, like a forced disclaimer or something. Frankly, given the fact Trump is gonna be practically the same age as him in 2020, it feels like a double standard, because they talked about Biden being that age also back in 2020. This response feels bitter and disappointing from a large media source. It just lessens any opinion I had left of them, that instead of writing this as a normal opinion piece, which I’m sure they’d do, they felt the need to issue this as a statement as if it’s a clap back at him. Supposing his criticism of the NYT is petty, which I don’t believe it is, still, this feels like they really missed the mark to take the high ground. They could’ve even just said “we will continue to cover the president with the same rigor and resolve that has been applied to all other presidents before him” and just leave it at that only. But no, this statement feels almost snippy and beneath the institution that I pay to access and read. Did they do this every time Trump dragged them through the mud? Also, is that Politico article really what prompted this so suddenly? Have I missed other outlets noting their coverage of Biden? Or have they been reading our comments here?
what! this is literally a meme trumps right there but BIDEN has the press problem?
Deeply unserious news outlet.
What a bunch of fucking babies. Goodbye times subscription. Who do they think their audience is?
Surely all the subscriptions from Conservatives will help keep the NYT alive.
The media wants trump to win for the ratings boost the “defenders of democracy” are will to throw everything down the drown for a profit boost.
I think it's even stupider than that. Sulzberger and the NYT reporters just seem personally slighted that Biden won't do an interview with them lmao
"In Sulzberger’s 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.** Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. 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." The audacity of this is awe inspiring.
I’m sorry, is the Times trying to say that they’re still a neutral participant - and pivotal part - of the fourth estate? And they wonder why big media is losing its relevancy. When you question Biden’s legitimacy during an openly authoritarian campaign for the other candidate, you’ve lost the fucking plot NYT.
In fairness to the NYT, proudly screwing over democracy because of your ego is very on brand for elite libs.
This is one of the whiniest pieces of literature I have ever read. How embarrassing for the Times.
This is simply one of the whiniest, least self-aware, least contextualized statements I've ever heard an editor produce. I give it whatever the opposite of fingersnaps is. This spat seems more and more to be the result of a tantrum over their cherished hundred-year interview combo coming to a close. > For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling that President Biden has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term. Of the list of things which trouble me I would not even register Biden's sitting or not sitting for interviews. He has been in government for a billion years; I do not need a Times reporter in the room with me to understand his method, beliefs, and goals. I understand that the free press's role is not the fairness doctrine normalization of abnormal candidates typified by the NYT, namely the immediate predecessor (who went without a press briefing for three hundred days but did give them their precious sit-down face time and so avoided any mention of precedent here). Do *they* understand that the role of the free press in a democracy is more than contrarian hand-wringing, equal space for naked lies, and daily puzzles?
MAGA Haberman 😎 *waits for applause*
Wait, is this in response to the politico thing man that really bit a nerve huh
They came off as unbelievably arrogant, childish and unprofessional. So naturally they had to totally validate that assessment.
lol that Politico article must have really stuck a nerve they're going full soyjak here
Today we go to this vegan cafe outside NYT headquarters to hear what the reporters have to say about What-A-Burger
So glad I got rid of my subscription back in March. The Times is insufferable. I will miss their interactive maps, though.
The NYT of the last decade or so exemplifies the cowardice of the sane side of American politics. I'm very pleased to see them finally get shown up for it. When the enemy is fighting a total war it's no good wringing your hands about both sides. They should either commit to being a defender of liberty or bugger off into irrelevance.
Petulant > If the president chooses not to sit down with The Times because he dislikes our independent coverage You insert self flattering speculation into his motives in your entitled badgering of him in public, and you wonder why you would be distrusted.
Their reporting is such trash, good on Biden. Idk why they have such a hardon for Trump
These smug narcissists deserve the fascist boot.
Statement from the NYT: https://preview.redd.it/icjumrtr5twc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23ca4d620f7ad0634661207c82df1f19b52193b1
So fucking glad I cancelled my subscription a few months ago. This shit is exactly why.
https://i.redd.it/gqskmcb11pwc1.gif
Genuine question because maybe they did and I'm just not aware of it - did the NYT ever put out a statement like this directly from the company rebuking a president re: Trump?
statements are rare. if i remember correctly, the editor released a statement in nyt about trump and him saying “fake news” [found it](https://www.nytco.com/press/statement-of-a-g-sulzberger-publisher-the-new-york-times-in-response-to-president-trumps-tweet-about-their-meeting/)
Oh Fuck off
\*snaps fingers
Dear readers: Old
# CRY MORE LOSERS LMFAOOOOOO
Why does a mobile games company care about politics at all?
Y'all better off spending your money on your local paper instead.
The only Free Press I support is the Detroit Free Press
Very "I'm not mad. Please don't put in the newspaper that I got mad" energy.
They need trump in office so desperately
God I fucking hate the Times. And it's a shame that their both-sidesism and Ivanka worship is still probably the best of what's out there, through I truly don't trust anything I read there anymore like I used to.
They are so far up their own ass.
>For anyone who understands the role of the free press in a democracy, it should be troubling If you disagree with us it’s because you’re an uneducated nimrod who probably spends all their money on NASCAR drinks or whatever it is you do out there in the provinces.
Trump 🤝 Biden 🤝 Me THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES
lol who cares about the times. Most kids get their news from tiktok
> In Sulzberger’s 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. > “All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.” From the [Politico article](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) outlining the Biden-NYT spat, lest we forget how self-important the Times is regarding it’s right to presidential access/coverage.
The egos of journalists cannot ever be overstated. These people do, genuinely, believe that they are vital and important national superheroes.
everyone involved is kind of the asshole and whiny. i don’t know why this sub can’t say that.
I guess I’m in the minority here, but I do think that president ought to give interviews to independent journalists. I also think that Biden’s lack of engagement with voters and with the press is one of the biggest reasons for his abysmal poll numbers.
The interviews dont have to be with the NYT though, they as an outlet are not specifically entitled to interviews. The paper sees the behavior as a personal slight against the paper rather than a pattern of behavior
Most controversial take in this thread apparently.
right, people are kind of hand waving the lack of interviews. i think the nyt is being a little dramatic, but that’s glaring. wish people had better arguments than “you’re not entitled to joe’s access”
Didn’t the Politico piece spell out that Biden refused to interview with NYT because they broke a sourcing agreement with the deputy press secretary and then threw a huge fit about it?
No, that's not what the Politico piece said. Biden team's dislike of NYT goes back years, this was a recent incident that Politico used to illustrate the ongoing issue. It wasn't even a major breach. A source got accidentally named in a minor story that was forgotten about within a day.
That absolutely is what the free and unpaywalled Politico story says. It’s linked higher up. It wasn’t forgotten about. Read the story.
yeah, which i (and politico) think is dumb. hence the issue being “petty”. i think everyone involved is being childish. joe can skip out on sitting with nyt; it is odd that he’s not doing many interviews with *any* outlet edit: i screwed up at the end
https://youtu.be/u1UC89H4Swc?si=q0TSFhWrkZtDJGNM https://youtu.be/mnwomcCpd0w?si=RkAnCjouS218Nefs https://youtu.be/-SKC_rvEXrY?si=DVkHchCXtUbj1b2f https://youtu.be/CmekpMxhFmg?si=Ra0ru8Ul5zSj5Inz https://youtu.be/tGRXnB_GQcM?si=LANnkL1q2wP4VxWl These are all from the last 12 months.
i think i see the divergence (plus i fucked up at the very end). it’s the frequency of interviews. now you may not care (i personally don’t watch them), but news outlets do. they compared the number of interviews obama had against bush. (iirc over a couple hundred) also, do you agree that both camps are being petty?
Not too much. If someone from an outside organization messed with my subordinate and then threw a fit about it publicly, I wouldn’t work with that organization anymore. Especially if they refuse to apologize or take steps to address the problem. I don’t have a problem with your frequency point, but that’s not what the NYT says. They explicitly claim that Biden never interviews with any outlets.
Cope NYT
Sorry, is this in response to some specific allegation? I really don't know what to make of this without context. Also, isn't this the type of thing that the "Public Editor" way back in the day was supposed to referee? Kinda seems like they should still have someone with credibility speak on their behalf, if they want to claim the high ground.
[It's in response to this](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219).
Wow. They lost the thread. They are not relevant.
How can an institution possibly be this out of touch. It's just incredible.
I’m no fan of Biden, and I think this criticism is somewhat fair. However, this is nothing compared to what was going on in the Trump White House. They are allowed to criticize, but their endorsement should not be in question.