Anything that is said needs to be looked through the lens of: Are the markets open, and, how will the statement impact them.
Didn't the US and it's insane ally murder Iran's negotiation heads and smaller delegations recently?
I think that's the story that should dominate.
"Conflicting Signals".
I don't even mean to be political, but one of the two parties here is notorious for lying, so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods they have come out with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
First line:
> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
Is there something preventing this?
>To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
The problem is that anyone reporting honestly on Trump would be excessively negative, there's not that many people who want to suffer through reading that (or through verbatim quotes of the things he says!).
> so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods
Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased politically/ideologically, so it should not be used as a fair "measure" of things.
Wikipedia is one of the more neutral point-of-view sources on the internet these days given its wide range of editors and consensus process.
Calling it biased/ideological is a recent trend pushed by certain billionaires who didn't like their DOGE corruption being exposed.
Money. Where will the funding come from? Companies controlled by the Epstein class?
The media should be asking about Epstein every time they have a chance, but it doesn't happen, because the news makes it's money through audience capture via FOMO, and you do that by always moving to the latest thing that happened, doesn't matter how irrelevant.
More Trump sanewashing from NYT. Yay.
When the history of this era is written, possibly on a cave wall, the media will bear a heavy portion of responsibility.
What does this mean?
They did not write the more accurate headline:
"Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran"
NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff.
It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.
I don't know either, but if it means that the NY Times is biased in favor of Trump, that's rich.
NYT is in favor of Israel. They'll whitewash any president who bombs middle-eastern countries. You do that by sanely discussing what's obviously horrendous war crimes, and by making "both sides" arguments.
It would almost make more sense if it were about supporting Israel. The reality is that the NYT and other outlets frequently behave this way across a wide spectrum of issues, foreign and domestic. They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician.
There are a couple of references below to start with, but if you do a search on Trump sanewashing you'll be overwhelmed with them.
1: https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york...
2: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/sanewashing-in...
>They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician
Wasn't expecting this kind of political comedy on HN but thanks for the laugh. We talking about the same guy who got politically slandered straight faced for years for a sleazy joke while playing a character on a fictional TV show where actors playing parody and mythical character fake jump on each other from cages and ladders.
How is the NYT not totally biased in favor of Trump?
Trump says insane thing, instead of repeating insane thing NYT rewrites it in a format that sounds like something a sane person says.
Here's an example where NYT totally disregards the gravity of what Trump is saying (blowing up NATO) and instead portrays him as a successful real estate mogul intent on protecting the West. NYT adds a bunch of flourish to make Trump sound more coherent than he did in the actual interview:
NYT article version:
>“Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump said as he discussed, with a real estate mogul’s eye, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas but with a population of less than 60,000. He seemed to dismiss the value of having Greenland under the control of a close NATO ally.
>When asked why he needed to possess the territory, he said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
>The conversation made clear that in Mr. Trump’s view, sovereignty and national borders are less important than the singular role the United States plays as the protector of the West.
Interview transcript:
David E. Sanger: Why is ownership important here?
President Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.
David E. Sanger: So you’re going to ask them to buy it?
Katie Rogers: Psychologically important to you or to the United States?
President Trump: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.
The NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared at the 2016 Republican convention. Trump sells papers, you see.
Using normalizing language in a headline such as this is a longstanding practice of theirs.
(Laughable? Your homework assignment for tonight is to Google the term Pied piper strategy. The NYT played ball with the Democrats at their request, and never stopped carrying it.)
> NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared
In the sense that it sells papers and ads? Sure, I guess. That’s the price of an attention economy. Someone who commands attention gains economies.
Or do you mean the Times is ideologically aligned with Trump?
By painting Trump's actions as rational developments. By putting his words on equal standing as any prior president's.
Look at the headline here for instance - US and Iran send conflicting signals, as though both parties are sending incorrect messaging regarding a potential peace deal.
What's really happening though is Trump unilaterally lying through his teeth (established), perhaps so that entities tied to him, likely his erstwhile bankrupt family, can manipulate the stock market (speculative). Of course, you won't see the NY Times or any American paper of record narrate the news that way. That's what GP means by the NYT's sanewashing. Because for them, any news sells, and you don't cut off the source.
That's laughable.
The Pied Piper Strategy was interesting to read about, but that doesn't agree with my experience of reading the Times. It seems more than happy to pander to its subscribers' biases.
I wish I could agree with you there, but I remember all too well what it was like in 2016, eating breakfast every morning with the NYT open on my iPad.
Day after day, I'd scream at them under my breath: You idiots are going to get him elected. You know that, right? Right?
Turns out that yes, they did.
Why you would ever think a paper run by out of touch New York elites who think they can solve everything would support an out of touch New York elite who claims he can solve everything? That's just crazy talk! Don't you know they often wear different color ties? And one uses big words while the other uses small words.
The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better.
I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it?
But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."
[dead]