Tag Archives: New York Times

Is this any way to write about Hillary Clinton?

Is this any way to write about Hillary Clinton?

“ xxxx has made it increasingly clear that she has no intention of being sidelined. … To the contrary . . . . she managed to elbow herself into a leading outspoken role.” From the New York Times of 9 April 2017.

What a pushy little bitch.

Of course not, they were writing about Nikki Haley.

Here’s how Hillary was treated the same day.

One paragraph should do it

“She noted the abundant social science research that when men are ambitious and sucdessful, they may be perceived as more likeable. In contrast, for women in traditionally male fields, it’s a trade-off; the more successful or ambitious a woman is, the less likable she becomes. .. . . It’s not so much that people consciously oppose powerful women; it’s an unconscious bias.”

Tne NYT should so inform the reporter who wrote the piece on Haley (both appear to be ‘women of color’) whose bias is far from unconscious.

The New York Times Parodies itself

I have a conservative friend who is becoming increasingly exercised by what he regards as the antiTrump bias of the Times. I’ve told him to calm down as the Times was turning into a parody of its former self. Today the NYT obliged by doing just that.

Here’s what so exercised my friend in today’s Times (19 Feb ’17). “For $200,000, a Chance to Whisper in Trump’s Ear”, Membership at Mar-a-Lago Gives Titans Easier Access to Political Power.” This appeared on the front page taking up the twomost right columns above the fold. All of page 13 inside is devoted to the article.

Here’s how the Times parodied itself “Around the World by Private Jet: Cultures in Transformation ” This took up the entire back page of the Style Section (New England Edition at Least) “Privately chartered Boeing 757 26 day/9 countries/50 travelers/$135,000” You will ride with 5 members of the Times staff (lilywhite) — Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. Alan Riding, Nicholas Kristof, Elaine Sciolino and Elizabeth Bumiller. You will not have to share the air with the Times’ minority editorial contributors, Charles Blow (Black) and Ross Douhat (Conservative). They don’t appear to have a Latino.

Imagine the joy of access for the cut rate price of 135K (who said the Times didn’t care about the little man), while cruising at 35,000 feet exuding both virtue and carbon dioxide.

Here’s part of what my friend had to say about the article (unfortunately he doesn’t blog (he should ) so I can’t supply a link).

Back in the early 18th Century William Congreve wrote:

” Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned”

You would think he was talking about the venerable “Gray LADY”, aka New York Times. Indeed the paper has jettisoned any pretense of professional journalistic ethics – any pretense of journalism purpose. A week after the election, after flagrantly shilling for Clinton and smearing Trump in previous months, the editor of the Times issued in writing to the papers readers an apology of sorts by admitting the paper had lost its way and promised to return to reporting news. Evidently atonement to its readers is in the words not the performance. The Gray Lady is profoundly stunned by the rejection by most of the country of the paper’s vision of how the world should be.

—-

Since the election the scorned and enraged Gray Lady has fill page after page , day after day , with disgrace as represented by the article below. The paper has flooded us with conjecture about things that have not happened and gossip of any sort that could denigrate and damage Trump.

The relentless attacks on Trump and his playing golf with dangerous cohorts etc is in marked contrast to how it suppressed any conjecture about Obama’s rise through the notoriously crooked Chicago political machine. Not a whisper of how he was dependent on other graduates of the Chicago cesspool, such as Axelrod and Jarrett. There was dismissal of Obama’s friendship with Ayers, a principal in a murderous urban terrorist group.

The august “paper of record” never conjectured how Obama could spent 20 years listening to Rev. Wright vicious racist rants and kept listening to them, but later said he hardly knew the man.

One final thought — could this be fake news, an ad bought by the Koch brothers to embarrass the Times. Possible, but unlikely.

The impeccable timing of the New York Times — take II

Reality keeps intruding. I’d much rather be posting about a marvelous paper (see the end), but the Sunday New York Times of 18 September 2016 had 3 articles telling us all how deplorable, irrational and islamaphobic we are, the day after 3 separate attacks on the citizenry (the Chelsea and Seaside Park bombs and the knife attack in Minnesota).

Two were on the opinion page — one comparing the Jews of the 30s trying to escape the Nazi’s with the mideast refugees, another concerned “England’s Forgotten Muslin History”. Well, we all know what a bunch of terrorists the Jews of the 30s were.

On p. 13 “Level of Hate Crimes Against U. S> Muslims Highest Since After 9/11” “Some Tie Attacks to Trump’s Statements” It couldn’t possibly be anything they’ve done.

For your enjoyment, here’s the post of just 3 months ago (13 June)

The impeccable timing of the New York Times

After putting ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers on page 1 saying he wished he’d ‘bombed more’ the day of the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, the New York Times kept its unenviable timing record intact by posting “Dreams of my Muslim Son” about Islamophobia on the editorial page the day of the Orlando massacre. Usually they run their invariable innocent Muslims fearing hate crimes by American rednecks story a day or so after the latest atrocity.

Unfortunately Orlando can’t be camouflaged as workplace violence or the response to some video or other a la Benghazi. The perp was far too explicit. Nor can it be blamed on the failure of ‘the MidEast Peace Process’ or Israel, although undoubtedly some will try.

If I were the Muslim leadership in this country, I’d try to put together a Million Muslim March on Washington to protest the Orlando, San Bernadino, Boston etc. etc. massacres, as blots on the name of Islam. ISIS would probably try to kill a few, but it’s time for them to stand up, assuming there are large numbers of US Muslims that actually think this way.

—-

You could not have a better example of how totally out of touch elite opinion is and the placement and timing of these articles is exactly an expression of elite opinion.

I had thought that the terrorists would be lying low until after the election, as terrorist acts work in Trump’s favor. But as a friend said about another Muslim group — they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

The paper I’d planned to write about is Nature vol. 537 pp. 107 ’16 (1 September 2016 Issue).

Now on to Trump’s health information.

Thank God for the internet, warts and all

Here’s the New York Times Monday reporting on Hillary’s fainting spell the previous day — “Clinton Treated for Dehydration and Pneumonia”, “Falling Ill at 9/11 Event”. Then it states that she ‘had to be helped into a van by Secret Service Agents”.

Still on the first page, “about 90 minutes after arriving there (Chelsea’s apartment) Mrs.Clinton wearing sunglasses emerged from the apartment” She is then quoted as “I’m feeling great” “It’s a beautiful day in New York” On the front page there’s a picture of her at the 9/11 service before anything happened. Inside there’s a picture of her leaving the apartment looking just wonderful and smiling.

The Times does mention the video, and noted that it captured ‘what appeared to be her legs buckling’.

Back in the day when the NYT controlled the news, you’d think nothing much happened. However, anyone looking at the video can see her passing out and nearly hitting the pavement, until she was caught by her handlers.

As I predicted in an EMail to some friends, the Times in its letters to the editor today had a letter praising Hillary as a typical plucky lady who carried on no matter what. For a paper that routinely headlines articles dumping on the church (the front page of 14 Sep has an article concerning how Putin is using the Russian Orthodox Church to extend Russian power abroad) they certainly love one of its institutions (the amen corner — aka letters to the editor).

The paper of record in Northampton described the event has Mrs. Clinton becoming “Unwell”, With Hillary in seclusion and unable to campaign, the lead story on Yahoo yesterday, concerned an attack ad of Hillary’s on Trump, not anything he said or did.

The internet and the blogosphere is often scatological, misleading, irritating and biased. But there’s such massive coverage on the internet that it has broken the monopoly of the mainstream press. Thank God for them warts and all.

Now, hopefully back to the science.

From the newspaper of record

Sorry, nothing earthshaking scientifically to write about, so here are 3 leads from today’s New York Times for your enjoyment

l. Page 1 top left — “The Failing Inside Mission to stop Hillary from Lying”
2. Page 1 top right — “How Trump plans to use Obama’s Embrace of Executive power”
3. Sunday review –Page 1 bottom “Hillary is making America more comfortable with pay to play”

Fair and balanced as Fox would say if they wrote them.

But they didn’t. It was the Times masquerading two opinion pieces as news on page 1, and an actual opinion piece in the Review.

Well, the titles were a bit different.

1. Page 1 top left — “The Failing Inside Mission to Tame Trump’s Tongue”

2. Page 1 top right — “How the President Came to Embrace Executive Power”

3. Sunday Review — page 1 bottom “Trump is Making America Meaner”

#2 is particularly interesting, as it is basically an excuse for ruling by decree, the dream of the left. The apologia comes in the third paragraph — “Blocked for most of his presidency by Congress, Mr. Obama has sought to act however he could.” So much for the constitution.

Ruling by decree has always been a goal of left utopians and pragmatists. Go back to the great Serge Eisenstein movie about Ivan the Terrible (part I 1944). It was commissioned by Stalin, and it’s all wonderful propaganda for the leader to do what he wishes unimpeded. Smash the Boyars. Let Ivan be Ivan. Only he truly loves the country. The second part wasn’t released until 1958 as Stalin didn’t like it. It’s really handy to rule by decree.

Well Maduro in Venezuela is currently ruling by decree, as has Fidel for years.

Where did this quote appear?

The following quote appeared in a major newspaper the day before the Brexit vote. Guess which one.

“David Cameron, the British prime minister has no one to blame but himself… made a promise … if re-elected, he would hold an in or out referendum on continued British membership” (in the EU).

The article goes on in this vein about what a mistake this was. Allowing people to actually vote, or as the article says “what many consider to be a wholly unnecessary roll of the dice”.

Various British mandarins are quoted as to the wisdom of Cameron’s decision, and a variety of arguments against Brexit are trotted out “sharp tones of xenophobia, racism, nativism and Islamophobia” — this by the authors of the article. No arguments for Brexit are given (as if any reasonable person could be in favor).

So where was it published? Pravda? Granma? People’s Daily?

No, the front page of the New York Times.

It’s the typical New York Times ploy of masquerading an opinion piece as a news article.

This is something I despise (see — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/helping-hillary-along/).

Not this time though. It is a perfect example of the elitist (and leftist) impulse of the Times in full cry. We know what’s best. The people are not to be trusted, but ruled by decree by their betters (vide Obama’s 13 million amnesty, and the BLM’s attempt to control fracking despite a law passed by congress).

It’s very good to see elite opinion lose. Americans should be aware that Brexit was opposed by the heads of all political parties, business elites, academic elites, Nature and the scientific elites, the church — essentially every class of elite imaginable. Perhaps this was its high tide.

A prospective experiment for you all to do at home

Here is a prospective journalistic experiment for you all to do in the privacy of your own home. Then it’s time for me to get back to the science.

The previous post (https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/helping-hillary-along/) showed how the New York Times is working very hard to brand Rubio as a member of the Republican establishment and as their preferred candidate. Well, he might be just that, but if there ever was a candidate of the Democratic establishment it is Hillary Clinton.

So here’s the experiment for you to do. Pick a media outlet you follow (NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, any TV channel of your choice etc. etc.). Then count the number of times the term establishment is used in stories about Rubio and about Hillary. Since I read the NYT daily, I’ll choose them. I get the WSJ but never plow through the whole thing — just the first section.

There’s no point in being a scientific type if you don’t make predictions. Mine is that the word establishment will be used at least twice as often (if not more) in stories about Rubio than in stories about Hillary (this includes op-eds).

So pick your outlet and start tomorrow. Send your results here by writing a comment on this post.

Helping Hillary along

A friend of my son once said that all you needed was the first one or two measures of anything Bach wrote to know how the rest of the piece would go. So it is with the New York Times. The lead about the primary campaign 3 Feb ’16 contains the terms “Army, Attack, Dispatches” and the sublead contains the term “Establishment”.

Do you think this article is about Hillary?

Of course not. This is branding at its finest. Of whom? Of a viable Republican candidate (Rubio), so you’ll know just what to think about him without even reading the article.

Another article on the front page has a nice picture of Hillary. They mention that she won Iowa by the narrowest of margins, but nothing about how surprising this was given that she has the entire mainstream press and Democratic party establishment (term not used) on her side.

It’s why the mainstream press must be read the way the Russians (and the CIA) read Pravda during the cold war.

Addendum 4 Feb ’16 — When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus in 2008, the press went bananas and noted that this was the first time a Black candidate won the Iowa caucus.

Have you read anything about the first Latino to win the Iowa caucus (Cruz) or that another came in third (Rubio) and that a Black candidate came in fourth (Carson), the three receiving an aggregate 60% of the vote in lily white Iowa?  I thought not.   That’s because the narrative that Republicans are racist must be upheld at all costs.

Second addendum 4 Feb ’16 — I should have looked at the editorial page of the Times before writing the above.  There is still nothing in the mainstream ‘news’ feeds about the Latino victory even now.  The Op-ed page contains “The Latino Political First We’re Ignoring”.  The victories of Rubio and Cruz are noted. The op-ed notes that “it is not being celebrated”.  So who is “we” and who is not celebrating?  “No less an arbiter than Jorge Ramos the Univision anchor” and La Opinion, the nation’s largest Spanish language newspaper.  One must ask who elected the arbiter and the editorial board of the La Opinion?  No one.  More media types holding forth in their echo chamber  Another example of self selected spokesmen being blindsided by events.

On the same opinion page we are told “The Republican establishment is thrilled”  about Rubio by Gail Collins.  This continues the meme on the front page yesterday of Rubio being the establishment.

I have no problem with Collins or the op-ed about Cruz and Rubio’s victory.  They are opinions and on the opinion page where they belong.  The problem was yesterday’s front page opinion piece masquerading as news.

 

 

Facilitated communication

Amidst the ads in the Sunday Magazine largely targeted to the 1% that the New York Times claims to hate is an article on facilitated communication. I had a clinical experience with it 30 years ago that you might be interested in.

As a neurologist I was asked to do an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) on an unfortunate man who was electrocuted at work (he worked on high voltage transmission lines). He went into cardiac arrest and sustained severe brain damage. The issue was not fault, which the power company readily admitted, but whether in what appeared to be a vegetative state, with no visible response to verbal commands, he was in fact conscious but unable to respond. In the latter case the reward to the family would have been substantially larger (for pain and suffering in addition to loss of consortium, etc. etc.). It was claimed that facilitated communication showed that he was able to write the answer to simple calculations given verbally, not visually.

Reviewing the chart before seeing the man, showed that he and his wife were admirable individuals, adopting children that no one else wanted and raising them despite limited income. He was seen at the rehab facility, with attorneys for the insurer for the power compony and his family present. It was apparent that the people caring for him were quite devoted, both to him and his wife and were very sincere, especially one of his young therapists.

The neurologic exam showed that although he did react to deep pain (sternal compression), he did not follow simple commands (e.g. blink). He appeared to be in a coma. Following the neurologic examination the young therapist then demonstrated how when he held the man’s hand to which a pencil was attached, the man could actually perform calculations — add 2 and 2 produce a 4, etc. etc. Several such calculations were produced all with correct answer.

What do you think I did next?

No peeking. Think about it.

I took the first sheet of paper away, placed a clean sheet under the man’s hand and asked for a repeat (this time with the therapist’s eyes closed).

This produced a bunch of random lines, nothing more.  When the therapist opened his eyes and saw the results, he was visibly shaken and close to tears.

Was he faking the whole time? At any time? I seriously doubt it. A faker could have produced a reasonable number with his eyes shut. Try it. He didn’t.

“You can’t con an honest man” — http://www.amazon.com/The-Sting-Man-Inside-Abscam/dp/0143125273

True, but you certainly can con yourself.

For another example, this time perpetrated by nurses, see how an 11 year old girl (Emily Rosa) put a definitive end to “Therapeutic Touch” and became the youngest co-author ever of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association — http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187390

Is a sea change taking place at the New York Times ?

The little kid started crying as I approached him with the syringe filled with yellow fluid. He knew that after he was held down and I injected him he would be violently sick and vomit repeatedly.

It was 1964 and this happened at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the kid had acute lymphatic leukemia, and the syringe was full of methotrexate, the antifolate drug in use at the time. I was a third year med student. Although Stanley Milgram had begun his “Obedience to Authority” experiments in 1961 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment, I was hardly a happy or willing participant in the proceedings. I had nightmares about it.

Like all the kids with leukemia at CHOP, the little boy was part of a ‘study’ run by an oncologist, with an accent right out of Boris Karloff. I thought he was a monster. He was so happy that the kids in his branch of the study survived a horrible 21 months, vs. the previous record of 18. I thought that the kids were being kept alive and suffering when they shouldn’t have been, in order to set a new survival record. The study randomized the kids between the new regimen and the current regimen showing the best survival.

Well, I was terribly wrong, and the oncologist was a hero not a monster. Presently the cure rate (not survival) of childhood leukemia is over 90%. We now worry about the long term side effects of the drugs (and radiation) used to cure it — cognitive problems, fertility problems. It was precisely because the new treatment was compared to the best previous treatment that we are where we are today.

What in the world does this have to do with the New York Times?

Simply this, on Monday 21 April the front page of the New York Times contained an article title “50 Years Later, Hardship Hits Back, Poorest Counties Are Still Losing in War on Want”. They don’t call it the “War on Poverty” until the 5th paragraph. Nonetheless, the article (without explicitly saying so) documents just what a failure it has been. Nowhere in the article, is there any mention of why it failed, but it’s clear that only more of the same has been tried — more food stamps, more medicaid, more free school lunches, etc. etc. It is claimed in the article that this lifted tens of thousands above a subsistence standard of living, yet 15% of the populace is still living in poverty and 47/300 million of us are on food stamps.

At least the Times is no longer pretending that the War on Poverty (started in 1964 when I was pushing methotrexate) is a success.

Another sign of a sea change at the Times appeared the day before on the Op-Ed page in an article titled “From Rags to Riches to Rags” in which the notion of a static top 1% in income was debunked. A study of 44 years of longitudinal data of people from 25 to 60 showed that 12% of all of them would be in the top 1% of income for at least one year, and that 39% will be in the top 5% of income for at least 1 year.

A third appeared on the 22nd in a front page article concerning a near lynching by Blacks in Detroit of a white man who hit a child with his car.

In recent years, I’ve thought that I’ve had to read the Times much as the Russians read Pravda during cold war I (and perhaps today). A friend has called it ‘advocacy driven journalism’. Perhaps there will be a shift in orientation from left to right, but, even so, I’m not a fan of having articles #1 and #3 any place other than Op – Ed page. Advocacy journalism is advocacy journalism whether it agrees with your political orientation or not. The 3 articles cited really aren’t news. That’s what the opinion page is for — opinion and background.

80+ years ago my future parents discovered that one of the first things they had in common was that they both read the Times. I grew up with it, and hopefully it will become a great newspaper again.

The failure to try anything new against poverty is a manifestation of the arrogance of the intelligent, about which there will be another post.