That’s not what he says. Not only does Kahn not say that himself, he’s not even asked about it.
He’s asked, “Why don’t you see your job as: ‘We’ve got to stop Trump?’” And he responds that the role of the media in a healthy democracy is to provide accurate and unbiased reporting, rather than hiding or misrepresenting facts to favor one candidate over an other.
I stopped by Joe Kahn’s modest office in the New York Times newsroom Thursday to ask him what some of his readers want to know: Why doesn’t the executive editor see it as his job to help Joe Biden win?
And this is the entire question he was asked:
**Ben Smith: **Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times: “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Why don’t you see your job as: “We’ve got to stop Trump?” What about your job doesn’t let you think that way?
And here’s his entire answer:
Joe Kahn: Good media is the Fourth Estate, it’s another pillar of democracy. One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, and the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election.
To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear.
I don’t know if that’s just an unusual interpretation or if you’re being disingenuous but I see the question and his answer as exactly as described. The question was: Why isn’t your job stopping an authoritarian, and he says, essentially, “because we don’t tell people how to vote”. Which is bullshit in 100 different ways. It doesn’t answer the question, it makes the exact leap he’s accused of in the OP, and he takes the opportunity to shit on Biden with a left-handed compliment and blowing more smoke up everyone’s ass.
“He says” is not the same as “he says, essentially”.
One is directly reflects what he said, the other injects your interpretation of what he said. It requires the leap of believing that defending democracy is best done by stopping Trump, even if it means abandoning journalistic ethics. He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.
To say that he doesn’t want to defend democracy is entirely bullshit. It’s not what he says or implies. He just disagrees with you on how best to do so.
“He says” is not the same as “he says, essentially”.
True, that’s why I put both the full quote and, later, the “essentially” to show that was a reading of it. Yes.
It requires the leap of believing that defending democracy is best done by stopping Trump, even if it means abandoning journalistic ethics. He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.
No “leap” is required. Trump has already staged a coup. Trump has already said he will pursue a program of retribution. Trump’s idiot followers in red states have already passed unconstitutional laws to prevent the voters’ candidates from winning if they so decide. NO LEAP. IS REQUIRED.
He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.
This is a platitude one learns in journalism 101 and at the place and time he sits, right now, it is means nothing. Let’s skip the definitions of what ‘an impartial media’ might mean and examples for and against.
The purpose of the free press is to allow any subject to be told. There are MANY subjects the NYT hasn’t touched about either candidate. But as regards trump, the subjects-less-traveled are almost all criminal, corrupt, and deeply idiotic. Is it “impartial” to deliberately ignore them? No.
Furthermore, the NYT appears to be “defending democracy” by chasing polling results and securing more cycles of a given feedback loop. That is also not impartial, nor is it defending democracy.
To say that he doesn’t want to defend democracy is entirely bullshit. It’s not what he says or implies. He just disagrees with you on how best to do so.
No, what he says and what he implies is, in fact, bullshit.
I have no doubt he believes he has a role in “defending democracy”. His actions on how to do that are simply wrong, and his words justifying his critical inaction give away that he simply can’t bear to write a story that might not give both sides equal weight. Do we need to argue ‘both sides’? I would expect not.
He says they have a responsibility to publish “hard-hitting” stories. Well, where are they? “trump said some stupid shit at a rally again”? “Joe looked tired and was hoarse”(on repeat for the month)?
I know that they have video on their site, but honestly, it seems like website-based news really really leverages newspaper strengths more than TV news strengths. Like, I’ll hit cnn.com when there’s some major national incident happening, but I just promptly flip off whatever streaming video stuff they try to play. I want to use their website more like a newspaper than a cable news channel. I don’t care about their famous anchorpeople or their 3d transitions or whatever.
I think that at the end of the day, there are going to be some online subscription news stuff there for the long haul, but I’m a little skeptical that it’ll necessarily be the TV news guys that survive, rather than the newspaper guys.
For a while, I’d say starting really with the 1991 Gulf war but peaking at 9/11, the 24-hour TV news watching fanatic was a prime audience that you knew you could rely on.
But now between internet news and social media, it’s basically become a relic.
My father and father-in-law were that prime demographic. They both watched 24-hour TV news constantly. They were both born in 1931. They’re both dead now. CNN’s audience for this is gone.
I don’t remember what they called it (maybe CNN Premium?) but for a while, they put their live video behind a paywall. Then that ended and then they did the CNN+ thing.
I guess it would be cool if nation leaders fought in a ring with their fists instead of sending their people to die, and bombing shit. Putin vs Zelensky, Netanyahu vs Hamas guy. Etc.
2 men stand on opposite sides of a valley. “Meet me in the middle”, said the man on the right. The man on the left takes a step forward. The man on the right takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle”, the man on the right says again.
Looks like this jackass of a CEO kept trying to meet in the middle.
Ukraine should have reestablished their nuclear weapons program and received supplies/support from allies after Crimea and again after Putin’s 3 day war was repelled and the nonproliferation treaty under the Budapest Memorandum was violated by Russia. The only language dictators care to understand is violence or the threat of violence.
Ukraine should have reestablished their nuclear weapons program and received supplies/support from allies after Crimea
The country was ten types of broke before the war even started. You want them to invest billions they didn’t have in a race to enrich uranium they couldn’t access so they could kick off a nuclear war with a country directly on their border?
If the only point you’d contest is the after Crimea part Ukraine being too poor to do it I’d suggest allies that also signed the memorandum should be helping provide supplies and technical support. I don’t believe any further Russian invasion would have happened under a nuclear armed Ukraine preventing the current conventional war. I don’t think Ukraine owning nuclear weapons would result in a nuclear war because it’s the same deterrent preventing Russia from using them themselves today.
Ukraine wasn’t trying to join NATO before Russia invaded neighbors including Crimea in Ukraine, and they had signed the non proliferation treaty, including Russia, to not develop nuclear weapons as long as Russia did not invade their borders. If preventing a nuclear armed or NATO allied Ukraine was their goal and Russia invaded Ukraine twice in direct opposition to that started goal that means their stated causa belli was a lie.
Ukraine’s leaders in recent years have made enthusiastic pleas about their desire to bring the country into NATO — especially current President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was elected into office in 2019.
His election came on the heels of a move by Ukraine’s parliament to enshrine the goals of joining NATO and the European Union into the country’s constitution in September 2018.
Three years later, Zelenskyy sat in the Oval Office, meeting with President Joe Biden during an official visit to the U.S., and he told reporters he planned to press his American counterpart on the question of Ukraine’s “chances to join NATO and the timeframe." No timeline or further commitment came out of the meeting.
But while Ukraine’s leadership has directly pressed for membership since at least 2008, it hasn’t always been popular in the country.
Ukraine wasn’t trying to join NATO before Russia invaded neighbors including Crimea in Ukraine,
2018 and 2019 were well after Crimea, and the popular opinion in Ukraine shifted towards NATO in 2008 because of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, one of said neighbors.
It is proliferation because they currently have none and would now have more. Even if not, which nuclear bombs are we “using” right now?
I’m sure sending nukes to a war-torn country will do nothing to resolve the conflict or stabilize the region. Israel is constantly in conflict despite having nukes and other WMD goodies. How could this possibly help? Do you imagine they’d use them? MAD only ensures that nukes don’t get launched. Putins “operation” in Ukraine could continue completely unimpeded
The Supreme Court just granted immunity to President Biden, so he can send him and the other traitors to Guantanamo without fear of legal repercussions. Of course not, nothing’s going to happen.
The Supreme Court did not give Biden immunity. They gave the president immunity for carrying out official acts. Who determines what an official act is? The Supreme Court.
Biden doesn’t have immunity. I’d argue he doesn’t have immunity as president, either.
He has it if he wants it. He just has to gulag the justices. By the time the case makes it to the supreme court, it’s all his own people. “Oh why yes, a president certainly can gulag whoever he deems an enemy of the state.”
Kind of hard to rule from a jail cell, and I’m guessing that he’d have died of old age by the time something like this was ruled on, regardless. I say, go out with a legacy of giving the court (and the GOP) what they deserve.
That’s the thing about this though. I’d like to see them try to prevent that from within Guantanamo. It’s not legal neither moral, yet it can’t be stopped using the law.
Being a congress member is about civil service, serving Americans. It’s not about self service or family service. They should put Americans before themselves. If they can’t do that, go work in the private sector.
Whereas I’m sure the money and the powerful friends and the luxury trips and the free RVs and houses are a big reason he hasn’t retired a long time ago.
He’s being quite restrained here, I think. I’ve been wishing someone would take ‘one for the team’ and try knocking him off for years (along with most of the twats we have riddling our news cycle with their insecurities, like trump, musk, etc…)
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.