Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.

Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.

And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff...   Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't taking a position on the Kurdish situation.   I was illustrating how two different but truthful headlines can create different feelings about a story.

[Alan Goldhammer]

What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning.  No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.

That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.

[Alan Klein]

This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.

Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.  They make our disputes here seem kind and friendly by comparison.   Jeremy does a good job keeping the lid on it.  The readers reflect the leanings of the two papers:  Democrat, liberal, anti-Trump.  You see the slant in the articles.  Check it out yourself.  You'll see what I mean.

The remaining 5% who read these articles and post responses, people like me, are just checking in on the enemy. 

[Peter McLennan]

Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.

You are quite correct about the WaPo comments section and that's the reason I almost never read them.  The NY Times comment policy is the best approach.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

Perhaps. However, I read NYT and WaPo (mostly titles, because of the paywall) from aggregation sites (Apple News, Microsoft News, Google News, etc.) and the selection of articles from NYT and WaPo there is mostly liberal.

Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.

I'm old enough to remember when 60 minutes had James J. Kilpatrick (Conservative) and Shana Alexander (Liberal) on at the end of each show in a point - counterpoint discussion.  I think the alternated who went first.  I always felt that these types of discussions were useful and some of the cable news outlets did this in the early years but it's largely disappeared.  Too bad.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Our "racist" president in action:

... received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

I'm referring to the news section where they are biased.  They can do and say what they want in the editorial op-ed section.  That is the opinion-editorial section. 

[Alan Klein]

 

It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).

That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.

[faberryman]

That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.

Whose reality?

[Alan Klein]

Our "racist" president in action:

In the Times, they'll bury it on pg 47.

[Alan Klein]

Whose reality?

If you want to believe everything that the NY Times says, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you.  I find myself more discerning. 

[faberryman]

I find myself more discerning.

Of course you do. No surprise there.

[Alan Klein]

Of course you do. No surprise there.

OK.  I'm more skeptical.

[Alan Goldhammer]

OK.  I'm more skeptical.

I trust this extends to the many statements from President Trump/

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'm referring to the news section where they are biased. 

Here is a very good story the discusses in an even handed manner tariffs and the impact on the steel industry:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-a-kentucky-mill-shutters-steelworkers-see-the-limits-of-trumps-intervention/2019/10/25/a27d3bb2-f02f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html   I don't see much bias here and as an investor who once owned stock in one of the steel companies mentioned, think that it gives a good assessment of what has gone wrong.  Domestic growth in industrial production has not been high enough to save jobs and some of the companies are in financial risk.  President Trump announced that the there would be some short term pain but the tariffs would right things.

[Alan Klein]

What am I to learn from one story?

[Alan Goldhammer]

What am I to learn from one story?

Read it and find out.