love this so much. i don't know the eye etiquette for pols or journos but as an actor and research interviewer i know EXACTLY how powerful that eye look is. and how it UTTERLY disconcerts your...prey.
"B-list Celebrities Discuss the NYT's Discussion of a Reporter's Discussion with Kamala Harris!"
And later,
"The 'B-list celebrities discuss the NYT's discussion of a reporter's discussion with Kamala Harris!' After Party!"
After these words from our sponsers
"Have you ever wondered if your life would be different if a reporter for the NYT discussed their discussion with Kamala Harris with the NYT? Well, the Editors of the NYT are here to tell you why it would..."
Kamala Harris owes the chattering class of the press exactly nothing. Specifically, the NYT and WaPo have shown themselves to be in the tank for Big Orange, and not just on the editorial pages. The way the headlines on the articles are written.The not-so-subtle slant of the articles. So why would Harris allow the NYT/WaPo to serve as an intermediary between her and us?
Harris can and does communicate her positions to us via her rallies, one-on-ones and her website. She doesn’t NEED to talk to the press. Leave that to that showboating bag of hot air.
One other thing strikes me. These people want to believe they're David Frost. The truth is there are nearly no writers/reporters left in mainstream journalism that are capable of interviewing competent, powerful (even if scuzzy) people like Nixon (or in this instance, Harris) because the moneyed interests that run the media DO NOT WANT THAT.
Phil Donahue (R.I.P. to a REAL one) is a great and in-this-moment relevant example of someone who was actually that good at his job. The NYT employs only those proven willing to write toothless drivel or invent "alternative facts" to explain the way the world works in a way that makes their masters happy.
These people are a joke. Their reporting is a joke. Even Wirecutter (which they bought out) is worse under their stewardship. At this rate, the recipes which find their way into the tabs on yer Wonkette will one day soon become instructions on how to eat horse paste.
When Kamala Harris talks she is clearly actually thinking. This is a great shock to the writers/reporters on the political beat because a full half of those they cover are never thinking.
Why think when all you really have to do is repeat your talking points, whether they are germane to the subject of the interview or not. Donnie's style of content-free bullying is much more congenial to corporate suck-ups like this "Astead (WTF?) W. Herndon", if that even is his real name.
Harris was more articulate and substantive in her 45 minute speech at the DNC than Trump has been in 9 years. She believes in boosting the middle/working class. She believes in supporting our allies, ending the war and suffering in Gaza, and not coddling dictators. She believes in voting rights, free speech and equal opportunity. She believes in access to healthcare and feeding hungry school kids. She wants to be a potus for ALL Americans. Harris believes in implementing the bipartisan border bill, reforming our immigration system and protecting the legal pathway to amnesty and citizenship. I know all these important policy positions because she told everyone and I listened. Did the NYT?
Trump believes all federal inmates on death row should be killed, now. Trump hates immigrants and wants them all deported, regardless of status. Trump believes in tax breaks for the wealthy, exploiting natural resources as fast as possible and that global warming is either a hoax, or will create more “beachfront property.” Trump believes windmills are a national crisis and that most major US cities are violent hellscapes. He is determined to fix the water pressure problems we didn’t know we had. He believes kids are given horse vaccines.
There aren’t two sides for the NYT to cover here. They should be pointing out the absurdity of a qualified, sane and competent leader like Harris being challenged by a felon and sex pest who is a pathological liar and tried to overthrow the US government. If they had any integrity at all.
NYT thinks way too highly of itself given how hard they've dropped the ball since at least 2016 and arguably 2010. Seems like quite the unprofessional interview but hey, NYT is basically a fucking rag these days so I guess I shouldn't expect more.
"Many people seem to..." is one of the most weaselly phrases in journalism. What it really means is "This is what I think but don't have the balls to write."
And what a clever locution that was for Trump. Oh wait, he didn't say that? Well, wasn't it nice of Mr. NYT to interpret it for us. I have no intention of looking up exactly what Trump said to that pile of puke Carlson, but you know and I know and the Times reporter knew that it was the usual pile of random insults, grievances, non-sequiturs, lies, and general verbal diarrhea that always gushes from his mouth. It is ridiculous and insulting for the Times to clean that up and pretend that it constitutes some kind of coherent brief that Harris needs to rebut.
This is why I will never subscribe to that thing. Between their self-regard and their utter indolence about facts, they'll never be worth a penny.
Kamala is such a badass! I love her more now. She doesn’t kowtow to them and they hate it.
There was a time I respected Astead Herndon as a reasonable journalist. What a disappointment. BTW, for those not familiar, Herndon is a Black man.
looked her in the eye and wouldn't let go.
love this so much. i don't know the eye etiquette for pols or journos but as an actor and research interviewer i know EXACTLY how powerful that eye look is. and how it UTTERLY disconcerts your...prey.
fuck off entirely NYT.
I cancelled the Times months ago. I haven't regretted it once. Not one single time.
Except maybe the Wire Cutter...
Up next on Bravo,
"B-list Celebrities Discuss the NYT's Discussion of a Reporter's Discussion with Kamala Harris!"
And later,
"The 'B-list celebrities discuss the NYT's discussion of a reporter's discussion with Kamala Harris!' After Party!"
After these words from our sponsers
"Have you ever wondered if your life would be different if a reporter for the NYT discussed their discussion with Kamala Harris with the NYT? Well, the Editors of the NYT are here to tell you why it would..."
Who else was wondering how much longer it would take before the Hillarization happened?
"Astead W. Herndon" I automatically distrust a person who uses their middle initial. It looks like the affectation of a con-man.
As to Herndon's articles, they read like a gossip column rather than political coverage.
Kamala Harris owes the chattering class of the press exactly nothing. Specifically, the NYT and WaPo have shown themselves to be in the tank for Big Orange, and not just on the editorial pages. The way the headlines on the articles are written.The not-so-subtle slant of the articles. So why would Harris allow the NYT/WaPo to serve as an intermediary between her and us?
Harris can and does communicate her positions to us via her rallies, one-on-ones and her website. She doesn’t NEED to talk to the press. Leave that to that showboating bag of hot air.
One other thing strikes me. These people want to believe they're David Frost. The truth is there are nearly no writers/reporters left in mainstream journalism that are capable of interviewing competent, powerful (even if scuzzy) people like Nixon (or in this instance, Harris) because the moneyed interests that run the media DO NOT WANT THAT.
Phil Donahue (R.I.P. to a REAL one) is a great and in-this-moment relevant example of someone who was actually that good at his job. The NYT employs only those proven willing to write toothless drivel or invent "alternative facts" to explain the way the world works in a way that makes their masters happy.
These people are a joke. Their reporting is a joke. Even Wirecutter (which they bought out) is worse under their stewardship. At this rate, the recipes which find their way into the tabs on yer Wonkette will one day soon become instructions on how to eat horse paste.
When Kamala Harris talks she is clearly actually thinking. This is a great shock to the writers/reporters on the political beat because a full half of those they cover are never thinking.
Why think when all you really have to do is repeat your talking points, whether they are germane to the subject of the interview or not. Donnie's style of content-free bullying is much more congenial to corporate suck-ups like this "Astead (WTF?) W. Herndon", if that even is his real name.
Harris was more articulate and substantive in her 45 minute speech at the DNC than Trump has been in 9 years. She believes in boosting the middle/working class. She believes in supporting our allies, ending the war and suffering in Gaza, and not coddling dictators. She believes in voting rights, free speech and equal opportunity. She believes in access to healthcare and feeding hungry school kids. She wants to be a potus for ALL Americans. Harris believes in implementing the bipartisan border bill, reforming our immigration system and protecting the legal pathway to amnesty and citizenship. I know all these important policy positions because she told everyone and I listened. Did the NYT?
Trump believes all federal inmates on death row should be killed, now. Trump hates immigrants and wants them all deported, regardless of status. Trump believes in tax breaks for the wealthy, exploiting natural resources as fast as possible and that global warming is either a hoax, or will create more “beachfront property.” Trump believes windmills are a national crisis and that most major US cities are violent hellscapes. He is determined to fix the water pressure problems we didn’t know we had. He believes kids are given horse vaccines.
There aren’t two sides for the NYT to cover here. They should be pointing out the absurdity of a qualified, sane and competent leader like Harris being challenged by a felon and sex pest who is a pathological liar and tried to overthrow the US government. If they had any integrity at all.
NYT thinks way too highly of itself given how hard they've dropped the ball since at least 2016 and arguably 2010. Seems like quite the unprofessional interview but hey, NYT is basically a fucking rag these days so I guess I shouldn't expect more.
They’ve been in the shitter since The Cheney Wars at least.
[𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱] 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨: 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭.
OK, where do I fucking start with this?
"Many people seem to..." is one of the most weaselly phrases in journalism. What it really means is "This is what I think but don't have the balls to write."
And what a clever locution that was for Trump. Oh wait, he didn't say that? Well, wasn't it nice of Mr. NYT to interpret it for us. I have no intention of looking up exactly what Trump said to that pile of puke Carlson, but you know and I know and the Times reporter knew that it was the usual pile of random insults, grievances, non-sequiturs, lies, and general verbal diarrhea that always gushes from his mouth. It is ridiculous and insulting for the Times to clean that up and pretend that it constitutes some kind of coherent brief that Harris needs to rebut.
This is why I will never subscribe to that thing. Between their self-regard and their utter indolence about facts, they'll never be worth a penny.
This whole NYT thing just tells me what a badass she is.
Sounds like the lady "defined the moment" and "made the case for herself" throughout the interview- and this thoroughly rattled the interviewer.
In his defense though, she *is* one of those womenfolk. So ...