If you want to bash the NYT, have at it, but don’t do it with the WRONG STORY. That just makes you and everybody with similar opinions (which likely includes me) look dumb. And it makes the NYT look right; completely undermining whatever your goal was.
Yeah, that’s exactly what the article is about. And the subtitle perfectly summarized it. Biden has done a lot for black farmers in Georgia, and white farmers have successfully blocked all that. And despite the fact that the white farmers have blocked it, Biden is taking taking the blame. That is what the NYT article is reporting on.
The guy I’m responding to said the headline was “black farmers are mad at Biden”. Which isn’t even to the same thing.
I think this meme is trying to say that the NYT is pushing a narrative that Biden should be blamed for this. But that’s not what the article is about. It is about the fact that Biden IS being blamed for this and that is unfair.
And if you are Biden, it’s important to know that your messaging on this specific issue has failed so far and you need to make sure that black farmers in Georgia know who exactly to blame.
They perceive that the article is bad for Biden so are attacking it. The reason it is bad for Biden is that it takes an albeit true story and frames it in the only possible negative way for him. Now that framing is still true but as far as that story goes it is weak and unnatural. As far as slights go it is a very weak attack. The fear is not that the piece will land a mortal blow but in the aggregate.
This isn’t an easy piece to slap down as it is objectively ‘true’ and the barb is nuanced enough to be missed by a disinterested reader (the target audience for both the article and its rebuttal).
For the sake of mirroring the low-concept appetite of the disinterested reader they wish to reach, they have decided (seems automatic tbh) to go with a low-concept rebuttal. So they spin the story in such a way as to subtract its nuance so that the intent is easier to spot. In effect it is a strawman. Which to an interested reader, such as yourself, is counterproductive as the lie is obvious and unnecessary.
It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story. It is not about the bill that Biden signed or the farmers that sued. It is about the political landscape going into the election. As such, there is only one way of analyzing this story. This one.
If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me and let me know where I need to better focus my efforts.
If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree
It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story.
All political analysis has a bias to it, intentional or not, framing is inescapable.
It is about the political landscape going into the election.
On the surface the story is about the disillusionment of a small fraction of tiny subsection of the populace of the US. But there are way more electorally significant aspects to the overarching story. So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn’t to aggregate bad news.
It’s like a reporter writing a story focusing on you getting ticketed for having a faulty brake light but only giving cursory mention that the brake light was working until the cop rear-ended you while they were driving recklessly.
If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me
It’s not nothing I’d hope but that ‘very’ is sweating under the load it is carrying.
If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree
You have me all wrong there. My intention was only to describe a type of electoral mood manipulation that I felt was represented here. I’m from the UK (I have a limited amount of skin in the game) so my comments are more about a recognition of patterns I observe in election reporting here.
PS. I’m very happy to read investigative reporting that actually lands body blows. I feel that there are more substantive complaints to be made about Biden but the NYT won’t necessarily make them because they align with their own hawkish center-right outlook.
So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn’t to aggregate bad news.
Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now. You can blame the NYT all you want, but they aren’t responsible for his performance in Georgia as of now.
This story is just a symptom of a larger problem. If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem, you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.
Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now.
And the article in question focuses on a granular detail that is too specific to give the NYT readership any reasonable understanding as to why that is. If it was the editorial intention to educate people then they should have composed a broader picture with polling of all the main subsections of voters and the relevant catalysts that impact them. But this is not what they are doing. They have picked this granular narrative because it it lends its self to the framing they want.
You can blame the NYT all you want
I would rather you see my opinions as a critical analysis of electoral media than specifically dumping on the NYT. Again, I’m from the UK I mainly read UK news I don’t have a specific axe to grind with US media.
This story is just a symptom of a larger problem.
No disagreement here. However the particular choice of symptom is part of the framing for the newspaper’s agenda.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem
If the NYT want to put out an article about the 'larger problem of disillusionment then maybe a more pertinent analysis would be of Biden’s backing of Isreal. Or Biden’s ageing (are the NYT pro-gerontocracy, probably not).
What has happened is they have scrolled down the list of diminishingly pertinent narratives till they found one that works the negative emotional engagement they do want.
you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.
Electing Trump is good for the far right around the world terrible for everyone else. Electing Biden is disappointing for the US as you could do better, and bad for Palestinians.
If you want to bash the NYT, have at it, but don’t do it with the WRONG STORY. That just makes you and everybody with similar opinions (which likely includes me) look dumb. And it makes the NYT look right; completely undermining whatever your goal was.
What does cool to Biden mean to you? Cause to me it sounds like they’re losing interest in him. Which is what the NYT was wanting it seems
Yeah, that’s exactly what the article is about. And the subtitle perfectly summarized it. Biden has done a lot for black farmers in Georgia, and white farmers have successfully blocked all that. And despite the fact that the white farmers have blocked it, Biden is taking taking the blame. That is what the NYT article is reporting on.
The guy I’m responding to said the headline was “black farmers are mad at Biden”. Which isn’t even to the same thing.
I think this meme is trying to say that the NYT is pushing a narrative that Biden should be blamed for this. But that’s not what the article is about. It is about the fact that Biden IS being blamed for this and that is unfair.
And if you are Biden, it’s important to know that your messaging on this specific issue has failed so far and you need to make sure that black farmers in Georgia know who exactly to blame.
They perceive that the article is bad for Biden so are attacking it. The reason it is bad for Biden is that it takes an albeit true story and frames it in the only possible negative way for him. Now that framing is still true but as far as that story goes it is weak and unnatural. As far as slights go it is a very weak attack. The fear is not that the piece will land a mortal blow but in the aggregate.
This isn’t an easy piece to slap down as it is objectively ‘true’ and the barb is nuanced enough to be missed by a disinterested reader (the target audience for both the article and its rebuttal).
For the sake of mirroring the low-concept appetite of the disinterested reader they wish to reach, they have decided (seems automatic tbh) to go with a low-concept rebuttal. So they spin the story in such a way as to subtract its nuance so that the intent is easier to spot. In effect it is a strawman. Which to an interested reader, such as yourself, is counterproductive as the lie is obvious and unnecessary.
It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story. It is not about the bill that Biden signed or the farmers that sued. It is about the political landscape going into the election. As such, there is only one way of analyzing this story. This one.
If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me and let me know where I need to better focus my efforts.
If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree
All political analysis has a bias to it, intentional or not, framing is inescapable.
On the surface the story is about the disillusionment of a small fraction of tiny subsection of the populace of the US. But there are way more electorally significant aspects to the overarching story. So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn’t to aggregate bad news.
It’s like a reporter writing a story focusing on you getting ticketed for having a faulty brake light but only giving cursory mention that the brake light was working until the cop rear-ended you while they were driving recklessly.
It’s not nothing I’d hope but that ‘very’ is sweating under the load it is carrying.
You have me all wrong there. My intention was only to describe a type of electoral mood manipulation that I felt was represented here. I’m from the UK (I have a limited amount of skin in the game) so my comments are more about a recognition of patterns I observe in election reporting here.
PS. I’m very happy to read investigative reporting that actually lands body blows. I feel that there are more substantive complaints to be made about Biden but the NYT won’t necessarily make them because they align with their own hawkish center-right outlook.
Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now. You can blame the NYT all you want, but they aren’t responsible for his performance in Georgia as of now.
This story is just a symptom of a larger problem. If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem, you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.
And the article in question focuses on a granular detail that is too specific to give the NYT readership any reasonable understanding as to why that is. If it was the editorial intention to educate people then they should have composed a broader picture with polling of all the main subsections of voters and the relevant catalysts that impact them. But this is not what they are doing. They have picked this granular narrative because it it lends its self to the framing they want.
I would rather you see my opinions as a critical analysis of electoral media than specifically dumping on the NYT. Again, I’m from the UK I mainly read UK news I don’t have a specific axe to grind with US media.
No disagreement here. However the particular choice of symptom is part of the framing for the newspaper’s agenda.
If the NYT want to put out an article about the 'larger problem of disillusionment then maybe a more pertinent analysis would be of Biden’s backing of Isreal. Or Biden’s ageing (are the NYT pro-gerontocracy, probably not).
What has happened is they have scrolled down the list of diminishingly pertinent narratives till they found one that works the negative emotional engagement they do want.
Electing Trump is good for the far right around the world terrible for everyone else. Electing Biden is disappointing for the US as you could do better, and bad for Palestinians.
I don’t envy your choices.
I see this and think it’s best to agree to disagree with your analysis.