The NY Times is getting attention for just how far off the rails it is going these days. Digby has a good write up (among those coming from so many others) on how the “paper of record” and others in the media keep putting a thumb on the scales for Trump.
(If you’re wondering what the ‘best’ commentary is the title refers to, that’s down at the bottom. Indulge me a little first.)
The quest for balance is reflected in several pieces in the opinion pages lately. I’m not wasting gift links on these, so read at your own risk. Here’s the concluding paragraphs for each:
Lindsey Graham: How Trump Can Improve His Chances of Winning
Mr. Trump has a long record of accomplishments on behalf of the American people. The more he compares his successes with Ms. Harris’s failures, the more likely it is that he wins.
James Carville: Kamala Harris’s Best Strategy to Defeat Trump
Throughout my nearly 40 years in the campaign war rooms, through every election loss and victory, one thing has remained consistent: The most thunderous sound in politics is the boom of a single page as it turns from one chapter to the next. This November, will we drag ourselves back again, succumbing to politics of fear and anger, or instead do the most audacious thing we can and once more turn the page to a new chapter in American life? I know that Kamala Harris represents that next chapter. If she stays fresh, soon the American people will, too.
Although these two guest opinion pieces are supposed to represent opposing views, the more important difference is that only one of them is grounded in anything approaching reality. The other is a recitation of fact-free talking points and glaring omissions from a man who has no core principle except sucking up to whoever looks like the strongest person in his party. But, the powers that be at the Gray Lady feel giving both equal credence is doing their job.
Try these two. The tag team of Ross Douthat and David Brooks offer advice to Democrats — because the Times house righties have only the best interests of the Democrats at heart, right?
Douthat: How Harris Wins (and Trump and the Republicans Blow It)
But winning on the most limited agenda and by the narrowest of margins is still winning. The 2024 campaign didn’t permanently bury Trumpism or populism, fix progressivism’s internal problems, or claim a mandate for sweeping change of any sort. It merely won the tens of thousands of swing votes required to carry the handful of swing states that decided the election. A minimalist message yielded a minimalist victory — and that was, for Kamala Harris and her supporters, quite enough.
Brooks: How Trump Wins (and Harris and the Democrats Blow It)
I know who I fervently wanted to win — Harris. But many Democrats were always a little over-ebullient about her. A Trump victory has never come down to running a brilliant campaign. It comes down to those five turbines driving enough support in enough key places in his direction.
Douthat’s sour worldview is on display; even though he’s writing about a narrow Harris win, he frames it as ultimately futile because it doesn’t really change anything. Brooks describes Trump’s victory as the inevitable product of factors Harris can’t overcome, and her own choices that fail to meet their goals. Brooks isn’t entirely wrong on how things are rigged to give Republicans an edge, but he blithely dismisses Democratic agency.
Neither of these has all that much useful to contribute. It’s more like some sadist at the Times assigned them to write a column about the election outcome neither of them wants. Neither of these are serious pieces by serious people — but they still get paid for it.. They both diminish serious consideration of what’s on the line.
If there’s one thing that stands out, it is the way none of these pieces really acknowledge just how extremely unfit for office (or human society) Trump is. The pretense remains that, despite everything, he is a legitimate candidate for the highest office in the land. His plans — such as they are — fail to get critical scrutiny. (Project 2025 is an exception because, unlike Trump, it was actually written by people with functioning — if evil — brains and can be analyzed.
It’s difficult for the press to handle Trump because they can’t keep pretending the Republican Party is a legitimate partner in American democracy if they acknowledge how dangerous/demented Trump is — and how “the Republican Party is a failed state and Trump is its warlord.” How can they talk about something that is so important, knowing that it will make many people angry — and seem too ‘political’?
Where to get the real deal: Comedy Commentary
The NY Times has found a way to get around this conundrum by outsourcing it to late night talk show hosts. Rather than give the Gray Lady any more clicks, I’ll post the Youtube videos directly.
Consider this a particular kind of genre: comedy commentary. Using humor to address the otherwise unspeakable or uncomfortable is an old tactic but still effective. Just because something can be played for laughs doesn’t mean the subject isn’t deadly serious.
Stephen Colbert does the best job addressing the absurdity of it all in my opinion — all those years on The Colbert Report really honed his instincts. Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon both make some points about Trump that need repeating, but their focus is more on laughs than comedy with a point.
Seth Meyers is another who can do hard hitting comedy commentary. Coming from Weekend Update at Saturday Night Live seems to have been better training than what’s coming out of journalism schools these days. John Oliver also does an excellent job, but he’s working in a different format.
Without more ado, here’s the latest three videos The NY Times saw fit to ‘print’.
Bonus Video — Seth Meyers and A Closer Look
Seriously, when you watch the video clips Meyers has put together, you have to ask why there are not mass calls in the media for Trump to step aside.
