-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The New York Times edits their article on the Joe Biden accusation because Biden's campaign "thought the phrasing was awkward"
- Thread starter Audioboxer
- Start date
On a side note, can you imagine if Trump is the one who picks this up and uses it as ammo against the NYT?
Like, I know the man has his own accusers but I wouldn't put it past him to try and control the narrative of this situation, and see it as an opportunity to further disenfranchise folk.
OP
OP
Well, Fox News has already been on it https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ny...o-past-inappropriate-hugs-kisses-and-touching
Trump is being very coy on all of this, but it's probably cause his ratings are wobbly right now and he opens himself up to everyone saying he has a long list of sexual assault accusations against him. Nearer the time to vote I'm sure his campaign will hit it harder.
Oh, I wouldn't bet against him trying to hide past his own allegations pushing this against Biden.
I'd say this would expose him back to the miles and miles of allegations Trump.has but apparently he can get last anything. It's frustrating.
Based on how the sentence read I'm assuming the campaign brought the potential for libel and NYT backed off. I don't think the sentence that was removed was materially important to the piece though. Everyone is aware that Biden has a touching issue, but I think it's also important to separate that from this particular allegation which is obviously sexual assault.
The media is not our friend and never will be our friend. I thought that should've been obvious after the '16 election and every day thereafter. They utterly failed us and kept failing us to chase profits to the detriment of the citizens.
Rags like the NYT aren't beholden to tribe red or tribe blue, they're beholden to tribe money and tribe power.
Rags like the NYT aren't beholden to tribe red or tribe blue, they're beholden to tribe money and tribe power.
Someone real plot calling kettle black from Fox though unsurprising. They're not wrong with their complaints which makes this all the more sad.
For sure, he's probably storing it up.
Yeah. I mean, the last election proved that his base doesn't particularly care - his goal will just be to shift the narrative that much further in the other direction.
I know, you would think Dems would learn their mistake of nominating someone that's had tons of scandal and sexual abuse allegations but apparently not. You're right that Trump's base doesn't care about allegations, just that he's hurting others. I would have hoped the Dems would actually care about this but more about defeating the Republicans in any way possible.
I really shouldn't have gone into that thread; it's like I'm a masochist. Sadly it seems that even on Era most posters don't seem to care about this.
I don't even understand why liberals would even support the NYT. It's like they've forgotten that this was the same paper that made a big deal about the Comey letter as well as cleared Trump of wrongdoing with regards to Russia in the eyes of the public during the 2016 election. And let's not even get to puff pieces about fucking Nazis.
The New York Times is legitimately bad. I know that sounds like an overreaction, but this is the paper that had multiple front-page stories about Hilary's emails and then blamed Russia on the 2016 election results. What was once the bastion of journalism is now an embarrassment.
Just think about how many stories have shady edits behind the scenes we don't know about. Anyone who trusts the NYT now is firmly in the "fool me twice" camp.
When I was a journalist, I would ask "What would happen if readers knew what we were doing?" when faced with a murky moral decision. That kind of thought processes helped steer me down ethical paths and it's a system that would serve the NYT well. But they don't care. Their subscriptions are up so who needs ethics?
Just think about how many stories have shady edits behind the scenes we don't know about. Anyone who trusts the NYT now is firmly in the "fool me twice" camp.
When I was a journalist, I would ask "What would happen if readers knew what we were doing?" when faced with a murky moral decision. That kind of thought processes helped steer me down ethical paths and it's a system that would serve the NYT well. But they don't care. Their subscriptions are up so who needs ethics?
Given how wretchedly conflict of interesty the NYT has shown itself to be, I have no reason to give that publication any benefit of the doubt, so actually in this case, I'm not able to seriously put the NYT safely in the category I'm about to provide, but I will say that in any news reporting where a party is accused of serious wrongdoing or fault - from a buggy software launch to a mass murder, it is proper journalistic form to engage with and cooperate with all the named parties - and that means providing their perspectives and responses.
This is of course pivoterd on the nature of the story - if a person is already being prosecuted, or facts aren't in question, there's no need to ask for a countervailing viewpoint.You can write a LOT of stories about murderers and rapists without seeking input from them.
While I would NEVER let a party decide on my phrasing of text - I may be forced to give them the right of reply for wording as part of any agreement for commentary or input - if they were obviously lying, I'd either present the opposing facts in the article to contrast those claims, request they restate their position or start again from scratch.
The question you ask yourself before going abouit that reporting is, "Does the public benefit from seeking these perspectives, and is the story going to be distorted by including those perspectives? And - can I include their claims and balance those against other facts to give my reader an adequate toolbox?"
The NYT here is OBLIGED to seek answers and input from all parties - and running final or core copy for input (not approval) is normal. If they had provided any of the basis for the phrasing in the first place, then this would align with normal reporting standards - or if the original phrasing were (binarily) incorrect or faulty, their feedback would be acknowledged.
If on the other hand, as they've demonstrated time and time again, they are willing to normalize horror in the pursuit of access then as usual, we may have been Habermanned.
This is of course pivoterd on the nature of the story - if a person is already being prosecuted, or facts aren't in question, there's no need to ask for a countervailing viewpoint.You can write a LOT of stories about murderers and rapists without seeking input from them.
While I would NEVER let a party decide on my phrasing of text - I may be forced to give them the right of reply for wording as part of any agreement for commentary or input - if they were obviously lying, I'd either present the opposing facts in the article to contrast those claims, request they restate their position or start again from scratch.
The question you ask yourself before going abouit that reporting is, "Does the public benefit from seeking these perspectives, and is the story going to be distorted by including those perspectives? And - can I include their claims and balance those against other facts to give my reader an adequate toolbox?"
The NYT here is OBLIGED to seek answers and input from all parties - and running final or core copy for input (not approval) is normal. If they had provided any of the basis for the phrasing in the first place, then this would align with normal reporting standards - or if the original phrasing were (binarily) incorrect or faulty, their feedback would be acknowledged.
If on the other hand, as they've demonstrated time and time again, they are willing to normalize horror in the pursuit of access then as usual, we may have been Habermanned.
Last edited:
I know that I myself often don't let go simply because NYT is a major outlet and limited thinking makes me believe that being major means it's always more credible/people will only take something seriously if they report on it. The actual truth is there's more than a handful of actually progressive and principled (at least currently) news sources beyond NYT at a third of the size and reach that could use more promotion than NYT and report on the same stories without compromise. Hopefully more people will make the effort to utilize those outside sources and let NYT be crushed under their lust for faux "neutrality".
If anything, that's an underreaction. The Times is trash living off a past legacy of journalistic integrity it no longer upholds.
As quiet as the mainstream media.
So sick of the news media controlling how information flows to protect their best interest and to push their agenda.
OP
OP
They're all going to endorse Biden, was always going to happen. As I said in that topic though, if Warren is holding off a bit longer due to this allegation this week I have more respect for her.
Bernie was probably the worst, literally days later.
Their framing sucks ass.
Tara Reade wasn't part of the public like Swetnick. You know who was in the public forum? Biden. The accused. Just like Kavanaugh.
OP
OP
Sometimes you wonder is it purposeful framing, or is it unconscious bias that deeply held that even writers at the highest echelons forget themselves for a moment and think they are on Twitter with all the other background noise doing damage control/downplaying?
This has been hyped up to be "the biggest election in American history". For understandable reasons that is clearly getting to people, but everyone still needs to be vigilant.
That is the life of a journalist, balancing you, yourself, as the human with thoughts, beliefs, opinions and your own political allegiances with the role of reporting. Not everything is always sinister, it's just little things here and there at times, an extra word which casts doubt when not needed, etc.
Or the NYT just sitting down for an interview and going "the Biden campaign didn't like that" with the seeming lack of awareness how that might be taken/what questions it might pose.
So when Trump says the NYT is "FAKE NEWS!" and they do this, it just empowers him
time to look ahead to 2024
time to look ahead to 2024
this is why it's so dangerous to put your head in the sand about these kinds of things, you leave open a vacuum for shithead tyrants to exploit legitimate problems with complete bullshit. we've seen it all over this forum where even the mildest criticism of the corporate media gets pushed back on with "oh so you're a fake news conspiracy nut???" and it's like, no, these problems were there before trump, they'll persist without him, and we're only harming ourselves, our institutions, and our country by pretending these problems are anything but.
OP
OP
Yeah there's a few, but they tend to be from outlets like Vox/Slate/Salon/The Intercept and others. If you're looking for some of the bigger guns, well, CNN doesn't even have ANY articles on this accusation as of yet 🤷♂️
And then there's the Fox news article I posted in this topic, but that's done under the guise of bad faith, even if it has good points in it.
Probably. But let's all regurgitate rightwing talking points about fake news instead.
If Biden cared about his country he would drop out
Asking anyone to vote for someone for POTUS with rape allegations and a history of harassment is just sickening
Asking anyone to vote for someone for POTUS with rape allegations and a history of harassment is just sickening
OP
OP
Well, it certainly would be interesting to go to court and have it argued inappropriately touching women, when you're a powerful man, is not sexual assault
"Even through clothes"
Some women might say "lighter" forms of groping, touching or... sniffing hair, weren't sexual/assault to them, but if we're shooting for the libel claims here, that would be a heck of a precedent a court saying Biden's previous behaviour cannot be evidence for sexual assault.
The women didn't press charges or anything, but that doesn't change how the public might feel about it. Hence that sentence initially going viral as fuck because people felt it was contradictory to say "no evidence" and then listing the inappropriate touching/kissing.
Things are heightened because Biden is a powerful man, but hey, that's a massive part of what brought us metoo. Powerful men abusing their power dynamics and getting away with it.
That bit *was* terrible and made the NYT look shitty in the first place. Removing it and claiming they did so to appease the Biden campaign is even shittier for all sorts of reasons.
Trump probably isn't going to bother touching this unless people bring up the credible accusations levelled at him, cause if he brings it up, people are going to immediately point them out.
Trump probably isn't going to bother touching this unless people bring up the credible accusations levelled at him, cause if he brings it up, people are going to immediately point them out.
the problem here is that trump's base won't give a shit and biden's will
we can't keep pretending they're going to be playing by the same rules, dems are much more likely to care about credible rape allegations than republicans. we've already seen that play out.
It was known that he had a history of groping women/kids too, and yet we were expected to fall in line. He should have been disqualified from the start.
OP
OP
It was printed, they rolled it back hours after that sentence went viral online stating it was to fix how it "had some imprecise language". Then a day later come out and admit it was because the Biden campaign didn't approve of it.
It's bad enough they didn't actually tweet that was the reason, but instead just slip it into an interview done later.
For this sexual assault allegation, his history wanting to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, his complete disinterest in the complaints of young people, and his refusal to back universal healthcare, are my reasons for not wanting to vote for Biden. This particular case is gross. Meanwhile, the establishment, including Obama, are propping him up. It falls on good citizens to force him out.
I think they meant the original story about the accusation. The Post/NYT literally were forced to print the story due to Reade filing a police report.
OP
OP
The NYT does probably have one of the longer articles, so I guess they can be given a little bit of breathing space for taking some time. Although they were grilled on that.
If we're talking about not writing anything, CNN still aren't reporting https://edition.cnn.com/search?q=biden
It's almost like he's doing it on purpose. I truly don't get it
Or, if you go further back, the NYT aided Bush in getting public and political support for the Iraq War that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The story is still there, they took out a part. There's literally audio of Trump claiming he has sexually assaulted women, and has been sued for such behavior before. So yeah it wouldn't matter what was printed about him. I don't really understand what point folks are trying to make with Trump comparisons. Until now Biden had been known to be "touchy", but his accusers had said there had been no sexual harassment or assault. This particular accusation changes all of that, and therefore media would probably be wise to side step linking the stories unless any of those previous accusers change their story in light of Reade's accusation. It both puts the earlier accusers in the line of fire, and their stories either be construed to help or hurt Reade's case, when in reality they should have little bearing unless something changes.
He's a privileged white boomer male. He just doesn't give a shit.
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." – Martin Luther King Jr.
The silence is deafening.
The silence is deafening.
OP
OP