'Headline was flawed': New York Times changed headline about Trump speech after backlash

And so then it would mean that publishing with a left lean is more profitable, right?

 

Sometimes. Finding an audience and keeping it happy is a route many broadcasters take and that audience can be based on political lean, in any direction (the obvious example of it not always being "left" would be Fox). This specific situation is about responding to a noisy minority protest before it boils over in to something more serious (but after it’s attracted a bit of attention). That isn’t always going to be about any specific political lean either though. Similar objections can be raised from an opposite political position or independent of raw politics but based on some other specific issue.

People on the inside see everything through a simplistic left vs right, us vs them filter, which is why the media spin (including many of the empty protests) work.

 

Then they should admit that.

 

You’d have to take that up with the NYT (and the rest of the mainstream media). I was only challenging the presumption posted here that their motives were entirely based on partisan politics.

 

Actually you may be onto something. I've always wondered why it's so heavily one sided. You'd think that if their motives were entirely based on partisan politics, then it would be more representative of how the country has voted over the past decades. And the country hasn't voted 90% in favour of the Democratic party but yet the media is like 90% Democrat leaning!

 

Left leaning outrage will get them more clicks. Millenials and people who think the world is ending...

Normal people dont generally read the news all that often, especially not the NYT.

 

That's literally the opposite of step one...

Ask NK, or Iran, or anywhere there is a dictatorship who controls the media.

 

Because the only way for a journalist to help a politician is if they show up and speak at an event in purpose, right? But ok I'll play. I don't know all is appearing with the 2020 Dem candidates right now. I'm not that tapped in to be able to follow the daily schedules for 24+ different candidates and their entourages. It will be easier when there's a nominee so we'll see then.

But journalists/commentators promoting (and even working for) a campaign isn't unprecedented. Shailagh Murray, Desson Thomson, Rick Weiss, and Warren Bass, were all at WaPo when they joined up with the Obama campaign, stumped for him, and a few of them went on to work with the administration. Eric Dash was a NY Times reporter before Pres Obama directed the Treasury to hire him. CNN's Aneesh Raman and Jim Sciutto were scooped up to become campaign staffers, Sciutto eventually became chief of staff to a US ambassador.

Maybe you remember the WikiLeaks spread on 65+ prominent media types who were wined and dinned by the Hillary campaign where internal memos showed the objective was to "make them feel like insiders to the campaign and promoters of its objectives". Which must have worked because somewhere between 90-95% of journalists that made direct donations to candidates in 2016 are believed to have donated to Hillary's campaign. Also its estimated that over $2 BILLION dollars were expended by media outlets on content that was critical of the President. And as a last little tidbit lets remember when CNN passed debate questions to Hillary's team.

 

Are "normal people" those who are not millenials?

 

Normal people are those who dont live on the fringe of either party.

 

So you're saying that millennials "live on the fringe of either party?"

 

Drop by any library and ask the reference librarian to get you any major newspaper that was published forty or fifty years ago.

First thing you notice how thick the paper is.

Then you start reading the paper and you discover just in the first paragraph of every story five things are answered in the first paragraph, "who, what, when why and where."

Then you discover that the author of the news story doesn't opine or comment on the story.

That all opinions and comments are kept in the papers editorial and column section of the paper.

If I remember correctly, that on Thursdays is when all of the gun advertisements were published.

 

True, I've always thought US newspapers are pretty poor, the NYT is the best of the bunch but this incident shows how the free press has deteriorated in the last couple of decades.

 

It is silly for any Dem politician to share the stage with PODS trump for any reason.

 

So you're saying that millennials "live on the fringe of either party?"

 

America use to have some great newspapers forty years ago.

The Internet killed journalism.

 

Yes and no, it means the ordinary person can have true influence now, that the news isn't controlled by a few dozen editors and reporters, the George Bush military records for instance?

 

Yes, the "Killian Documents" when a Democrat forged a fake letter by using Microsoft Words when there was no Microsoft Words back in 1973.

The U.S. military back then used typewriters.

It was a blog (Little Green Footballs) on the internet that busted the Democrats using a computer to forge a fake letter.

Lessons not learned:
If someone is going to attack a candidates military service or lack of military service it should be left to veterans who served back in the day to decide if the candidate should be swiftboated or not.

 

How do you know that the Dept of Defense intentionally withheld details about this operation?

 

@HumbledPi?

 

In June, Trump slammed the New York Times report, the same report that I posted. Here's the Politico article.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/15/trump-nyt-report-cyber-attacks-russia-1365852
[snip]President Donald Trump lashed out at The New York Times on Saturday for a report that the United States has been increasing its cyber-intrusions into Russia, escalating tensions between the two countries.

The Times reported that the United States has increased measures to penetrate Russia's power grid as a message to Moscow to stay out of American cyber infrastructure. The efforts lay an aggressive groundwork for an attack on the Russian grid on an unprecedented scale if the two countries were to enter into conflict, the Times reported.[/snip]

The reason Trump slammed the NYT is because he really had no clue at all that the Dept.of Defense was carrying out cyber-warfare against Russia. Know why? Because he's the one that actually signed the executive order last summer giving authorization to Cyber Command to do exactly that, engage in cyber warfare without the necessity to notify him or to get his approval ahead of time. Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document known as National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval. Naturally they didn't, and that's why he was so upset with the NYT report which was accurate. The DOD knows that Trump can't be trusted to keep this secret from Putin and secrecy in cyber-warfare is essential.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-trump-power-grid-putin-kremlin-a8960681.html

 

You figure this headline "Trump urges unity vs. racism" promotes the interests of the DNC?

Interesting.

 

I read this to say that Trump is an idiot.

 

So your opinion that the Dept of Defense intentionally withheld details about this operation from Trump over concerns that he might leak it is based on the opinion of some journalist from The Independent?