The NY Times should be very careful what it wants. The article is almost implying that the National Enquierer did something illegal with its coverage of the election. However, the NYTimes has been also accused of u fair coverage against Trump https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-...
If we break the taboo of prosecutors looking at a newspapers political coverage, it won’t be long before The NY Times itself ends up u see the microscope and that will be bad for our democracy.
> The NY Times should be very careful what it wants. The article is almost implying that the National Enquierer did something illegal with its coverage of the election.
That's no longer in any reasonable dispute, given the non-prosecution agreement between AMI and DoJ. There might still be room for disagreement about the precise scope of the illegality.
> However, the NYTimes has been also accused of u[n]fair coverage against Trump
Not all accusations are created equal.
> If we break the taboo of prosecutors looking at a newspapers political coverage
It's not a taboo, it's already been broken if it was, and there'd be no teeth to campaign finance law if we didn't.
> it won’t be long before The NY Times itself ends up u see the microscope and that will be bad for our democracy.
The political coverage of the New York Times has been the subject of criminal action and civil lawsuits in the past, some of each of which set important First Amendment precedent. Being under the microscope isn't new territory for the Times.
Political news coverage is not, of course, illegal, that's just 1st amendment stuff. Coordinating with a campaign in regards to coverage is, however, an "in kind" political contribution, not merely an exercise of one's own views, and is a violation of campaign finance law. Which is hardly the full extent of all of the illegal activities that AMI engaged in on behalf of the Trump campaign.
The Russian Troll army spent a few thousand dollars (no more than $100K by any report I can find) on social media. Meanwhile the campaigns themselves spent $2.6 Billion on all ads, and that's not even counting the $ value of the millions of memes freely shared on the internet in various forms.
Can I ask what we're trying to deduce here? There are billions and billions of advertisement impressions and editorial impressions and meme/tweet/reddit comment impressions over the course of an election cycle. Certainly they all exert influence on voters. But there is a vast competition of ideas and opinions floating out there.
Now, NY Times is trying to point the finger at National Enquirer, a tabloid magazine famous for... Brangelina gossip... for Clinton's defeat.
6 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 32.0 ms ] threadIf we break the taboo of prosecutors looking at a newspapers political coverage, it won’t be long before The NY Times itself ends up u see the microscope and that will be bad for our democracy.
That's no longer in any reasonable dispute, given the non-prosecution agreement between AMI and DoJ. There might still be room for disagreement about the precise scope of the illegality.
> However, the NYTimes has been also accused of u[n]fair coverage against Trump
Not all accusations are created equal.
> If we break the taboo of prosecutors looking at a newspapers political coverage
It's not a taboo, it's already been broken if it was, and there'd be no teeth to campaign finance law if we didn't.
> it won’t be long before The NY Times itself ends up u see the microscope and that will be bad for our democracy.
The political coverage of the New York Times has been the subject of criminal action and civil lawsuits in the past, some of each of which set important First Amendment precedent. Being under the microscope isn't new territory for the Times.
Can I ask what we're trying to deduce here? There are billions and billions of advertisement impressions and editorial impressions and meme/tweet/reddit comment impressions over the course of an election cycle. Certainly they all exert influence on voters. But there is a vast competition of ideas and opinions floating out there.
Now, NY Times is trying to point the finger at National Enquirer, a tabloid magazine famous for... Brangelina gossip... for Clinton's defeat.