The New York Times downplayed the Holocaust. I assume everyone knows that, but maybe they don't. For a variety of reasons — the Times's Jewish owners didn't want to seem to be going to bat for the Jews. The Roosevelt administration didn't want the considerable portion of America that harbored sympathies for Hitler to think the war was being fought to save Jews. And, in the Gray Lady's defense, no one could quite believe what was happening. The NYT wasn't alone in getting things backward — check out the Milwaukee Sentinel above.
At least the Holocaust was semi-hidden. What is harder to understand how the Times can now botch reporting on the latest manifestation of evil — Donald Trump's quest to retake the White House and destroy democracy. There's no other way to say it. The man is a traitor, lapdog of Vladimir Putin, would-be buddy of tyrants and strongmen everywhere, whose ruthless authority he envies. Liar, bully, fraud and felon. That isn't an opinion. It's mere fact. Obvious fact.
It amazes me how the Times just doesn't get it, even when they act like they do. Their front page story Oct. 6 on Trump's "extensive cognitive decline" might be reassuring if it were news. But it isn't. It's what I call "Napoleon escaped from Elba" news. News that isn't new. Trump has been full-blown batshit crazy, a raving loon since Day One. On Wednesday, they ran a story spotlighting a single, minor lie, "Trump Says He Visited Gaza, but There's No Record of It." At this point, that is like sharing news that Hugh Hefner went on a date. The miss-the-forest-behind-the-tree aspect is staggering.
A scrupulous journalist — oh for instance me — might frame that story differently. "Donald Trump lied about visiting Gaza, which is no big shocker because he lies CONTINUALLY about EVERYTHING! But we thought we'd share this latest mote of falsehood anyway, a drop of water in a torrent, in the name of thoroughness."
It amazes me how the Times just doesn't get it, even when they act like they do. Their front page story Oct. 6 on Trump's "extensive cognitive decline" might be reassuring if it were news. But it isn't. It's what I call "Napoleon escaped from Elba" news. News that isn't new. Trump has been full-blown batshit crazy, a raving loon since Day One. On Wednesday, they ran a story spotlighting a single, minor lie, "Trump Says He Visited Gaza, but There's No Record of It." At this point, that is like sharing news that Hugh Hefner went on a date. The miss-the-forest-behind-the-tree aspect is staggering.
A scrupulous journalist — oh for instance me — might frame that story differently. "Donald Trump lied about visiting Gaza, which is no big shocker because he lies CONTINUALLY about EVERYTHING! But we thought we'd share this latest mote of falsehood anyway, a drop of water in a torrent, in the name of thoroughness."
Why not print that sentence? Is it not utterly true? In the same edition of the paper, Jess Bidgood's On Politics "Trump's Ugly Closing Argument" column ends with this: "Democracy experts have expressed deep concern that Trump is seeking to stoke doubt in the result of the election, laying the groundwork for him to contest it if he does not win."
Really, "deep concern"? Is that what the "Democracy experts," whoever the fuck they are, have? Let's recast that sentence to better reflect reality. "Anyone with eyes in their head and brain behind them has watched with growing horror as Donald Trump vigorously stoked doubts regarding past and present elections like a blacksmith at his bellows, laying the groundwork when he tries to overthrow the result of the election, again, which he absofuckinglutely will do if he doesn't win outright."
Which version do you feel better reflects the true situation? Maybe this is a minor point. The people voting for Donald Trump aren't reading the New York Times. Or me for that matter. But why not speak the truth plainly? Because we sure as hell won't be able to after he is elected.
Really, "deep concern"? Is that what the "Democracy experts," whoever the fuck they are, have? Let's recast that sentence to better reflect reality. "Anyone with eyes in their head and brain behind them has watched with growing horror as Donald Trump vigorously stoked doubts regarding past and present elections like a blacksmith at his bellows, laying the groundwork when he tries to overthrow the result of the election, again, which he absofuckinglutely will do if he doesn't win outright."
Which version do you feel better reflects the true situation? Maybe this is a minor point. The people voting for Donald Trump aren't reading the New York Times. Or me for that matter. But why not speak the truth plainly? Because we sure as hell won't be able to after he is elected.