This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Q: I want to ask about some edits that were made after publication, the deletion of the second half of the sentence: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” Why did you do that?
A: Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct. And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say.
The New York Times is taking editorial advice from the Biden campaign now? Isn't that a pretty clear conflict of interest?
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Q: I want to ask about some edits that were made after publication, the deletion of the second half of the sentence: “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” Why did you do that?
A: Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct. And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say.
The New York Times is taking editorial advice from the Biden campaign now? Isn't that a pretty clear conflict of interest?
Did you think the "press vs Trump" thing was a conspiracy theory or a meme? They've been openly against him and WITH the Democrats for a long time. They take talking points from the DNC, they gave Hillary debate questions. It's bad when Fox is the most balanced news service (50% negative to Trump vs 90%+ negative on every other network).
I don't accept that, Wokko. The guy lies more or less every time he opens his mouth. Biden isn't glistening with moral rectitude, either - but there is an enormous "credibility gulf" between them. Biden is just a little senile and an alleged sex offender, whereas Trump just fibs about stuff routinely and then, when he's caught out (as he has been repeatedly), he asserts that he isn't being reported fairly. Whatever they may think about his policies (whatever they actually are), there's a preliminary issue every time they report anything about him. It got so bad recently that significant blogs starting fact checking his coronavirus press conferences live. That became necessary because almost every single factoid he uttered was either demonstrably false or misleading.
Dealing appropriately with politicians as a journalist doesn't involve 50/50 good-versus-critical coverage quota. If you never do anything good, you should never get good coverage. Howard used to whine about that when he was in office - the suggestion that a journalist is "left-leaning" because she or he pulls up a conservative politician for telling porkies is something that has crept into our authoritarian discourse over the last 20 years or so. It should be resisted.
"Balance" for Trump should, in my view, constitute (1) never reporting anything he says, directly (since almost none of it is ever true, however much it may resonate with his faithful); and (2) only referring to what he might have said or done for the purpose of constructive analysis (to the extent that might ever be possible). The guy is an actual bona fide idiot and the fact that he's foaming about in the Oval Office isn't a get-out-of-asylum-free card.
Also, one hopes that now he is not putting up his re-election campaign through the daily "press briefings" on coronavirus (to paraphrase:"Things are going just great, I've done a magnificent job, I'm the best president ever, I'm the King of Ventilators, I'm the only thing standing between you and 200,000 deaths"), it is just possible that someone might stand up at one of those press conferences, acknowledge the genuine tragedy of 54,256 dead in the US, as I write - and express a little regret about that. I understand that he's emotionally incapable of taking responsibility for anything that is or might be unfavourable to him but a little "We can all feel a bit sad about this" wouldn't hurt.
He's listening to the nice things Hillary is saying
She's talking about essential workers or something there. He's dozing off or he's on the nod from drugs
Biden's been going further and further down the rabbit hole in the last few weeks.
Now his campaign are talking about lowering his number of appearances/events to lessen the gaffes/awkward silences/wandering off/verbally attacking random voters. He's getting away with it for now, but once Trump ramps up his campaign it'll be a shitshow.
I think the difference will be Trump has rusted on, borderline zealot supporters. The whole "Could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a voter" and Biden doesn't. Very few people are excited about Joe Biden, he doesn't exactly have supporters, more Anyone but Trump voters and 'If he's blue he'll do' kind of voters. Not the kind who'll move heaven and Earth to make it to a polling booth.
