NYTimes ~ Proof of Bias and Malintent Against the President

The President needs to tweet MORE, it’s clearly driving the media crazy.

This morning, The New York Times published long and slick article representing months of research by over a dozen editors and staff people. They categorized 11,000 tweets from the President, and interviewed Twitter employees along with current and former administration officials, lawmakers. The headline of the article notes the editors at NYTimes read the tweets “twice”. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/insider/trump-twitter-data.html

The article was done by the NYTimes, which has a well-known bias towards the President, thus we are conditioned to be cynical. In this case, however, let’s be as objective as possible. It COULD be the NYTimes has done us a great service. Let’s see what happens. Let’s watch for the obvious propaganda and subjective triggers to mislead the reader.

1. Let’s take the title of the article, first. “The Journalists Who Read All of President Trump’s Tweets. Twice.” The title leads the reader to believe the “journalists” have done an enormous amount of work, lending credibility. Obviously this is a task no normal person could ever accomplish. We need professionals to help us, and miraculously the NYTimes has appeared. We should be grateful. To drive the point home, in fact, the “journalists” even read the tweets………. TWICE.
2. The by-line ” For a special report, The Times sorted more than 11,000 Twitter posts to understand a new form of executive power. “, indicates this report is “special” and worthy of our attention, above and beyond normal stories. The report is massive in scale, over 11,000 tweets. And a foreshadowing of concern, “a new kind of executive power”. What does that mean? What has changed? Should we be alarmed?

Already, before even reading the article, the NYTimes has attempted to form our opinion. The “journalists” are professional, undertaken a massive effort, and we should be concerned.

Further into the article, we learn the NYTimes has:

• 3. Interviewed “nearly 50 current & former administration officials, lawmakers & Twitter employees.” This is a loaded statement. How many were interviewed? “Nearly” is a subjective term. In fact, “20 people” could be categorized as “nearly 50 people” when compared to 1,000 people or a million people. “Current and Former Administration officials” means the NYTimes is talking to political opponents… with at least one person who is working “in the administration”….. but that person COULD be a TSA worker in Detroit. No specifics. No breakdown. “Lawmakers” is also intentionally vague. Are the lawmakers members of a school board in the Bronx, or Aldermen in Mississippi, or are they Congressmen from the Republican or Dem Party? Again, no specifics. Finally, the NYTimes talked to “Twitter employees“. Was it the janitor? Was it @Jack? Was it the 24yr old female uber feminist who works the midnight shift? We have no idea. The number of “50” is designed to mislead the reader and make us think there is an overwhelming consensus for the results, AND that the NYTimes did adequate research……….. BUT, if the NYTimes did so much research, why didn’t they breakdown the numbers and name the sources?

• 4. We see the line, “The White House declined to comment.” Hmmmm, the implication is the WH is silent. Are they worried? What is the WH hiding? Who was asked to comment? Was it a gardener? A chef? Or, was it the WH Communications Director? When was the WH asked to comment? Did the NYTimes call the WH back in June and say, “Hey, we’re going to intentionally create a narrative of Trump tweets are bad (which is the goal here, make no mistake). Therefore we’re going to spend the next four months cherry-picking Trump tweets in big cover story to make our case…. We’re looking for a comment from the WH.” And the WH said, in essence, “Go to hell…..”?

• 5. As we get into the article, we see Karen Yourish and Larry Buchanan, graphics arts editors, were the ones who read every Presidential tweet – twice. Is the country supposed to rely solely on the opinion of two graphics arts editors? Does that seem reasonable? Does it strike us as great, massive, professional research, which would rise to the level of The New York Times? No, why don’t we just ask the guys who restock the vending machines for their opinion? It warrants the same merit and those guys might be better.

• 6. Karen and Larry created a “spreadsheet” (propaganda trigger word – more inference of authority and expert analysis…… with no science behind it) and they divided the all 11,000 tweets into 52 categories and subcategories. This is the first categorical, proof positive, indication we have of malintent and bias. How can two graphic editors decide on the subject of 11,000 tweets without being subjective? If Trump tweets, “The sky sure is a brilliant blue today”, then does the tweet go into the category of “color blue” or the category of “comment on sky”? What defines an “attack” tweet, according to the two graphic designers? Do the two graphic designers have the same sense of humor as the President? Gee, it would be hard to imagine.
• Bottom line, if tweets were separated, for instance, by time… 7:00am-9:00am, then we could all look at the time of tweet and we could all agree on parameters on how to divide tweets into categories. For subjective interpretation, no two people, let alone 330 million people, would/could EVER agree on 52 categories and divvying up 11,000 tweets in the same way. The concept, the entire premise of what the NYTimes is doing, here, would be mathematically impossible. No science. Thus, it’s all opinion, yet framed to the reader to be deep analysis.

We’re supposed to trust the NYTimes, and THEIR opinion, which is really the opinion of two graphic designers, as a valid research project.

• 7. Note further, there is a category for “praise and conspiracy”. How do the two graphic designers define “conspiracy”? Should we assume any Presidential tweet or question about Ukraine, or Obama spying on Trump campaign is a “conspiracy” until it is proven? Wouldn’t’ that skew the final numbers?

• 8. Perhaps the most insulting, in-your-face indication of malintent, comes further in the same paragraph, “They (Karen and Larry) and Keith Collins, a visual storytelling editor, then analyzed the entire data set to find trends and outliers.” So, Keith is a storyteller, and a good one, because he is the storytelling “editor”. He’s a creative writer/drawer – because he paints pics for us!!! Does this sound like clear and hard analysis? Note the use of the words “analyzed the entire data set”, more propaganda trigger words to imply astute and scientific analysis…….. on an opinion from two graphic designers.

• 9. “The data set informed a collaborative project from Investigations, Washington, Politics and Digital and Print Design, “The Twitter Presidency” appears as a special section of Sunday’s paper.“, is the next sentence, a separate paragraph, and loaded with propaganda. Note the use of the phrase “data set” – yet……… it’s not like any data set in mathematics, ever. It was a “collaborative project” inferring a “bandwagon” classic propaganda technique (Bandwagon = All your neighbors are doing it so why don’t you?). The use of the word “Investigations” and note the capitalization, implying authority and legal legitimacy, vast resources were expended to find the truth…… no, it really was just the opinion of two graphic editors for the majority of the “investigation”. Note all the different divisions which took part in this “story”, which is probably how the Times got to a “dozen different journalists and editors”. Finally, “The Twitter Presidency“, the finished product, is wrapped in a pretty bow and presented to the public as the definitive work on the subject of Donald Trump and Twitter……. albeit highly suspect, yet presented as a PhD dissertation…. which is worthy of a “Special Section” in Sunday’s Paper.

The New York Times even went so far as to create a small video of their “Special Section” in Sunday’s edition, layered with more propaganda trigger words.

Wow, have we ever seen a video promoting a big spread article from the NYTimes? Gee, I guess it must be important. Intentionally designed and pushed on social media to attract attention and influence readers, the voting public.

The clear purpose of the NYTimes is for voters to begin to discount, view negatively, every subsequent tweet from the President.

Disregarding everything else from the NYTimes, the hundreds (if not thousands) of negative articles written about Donald Trump, this piece stands out above all others, confirming bias and malintent. This piece is pure propaganda and designed to degrade the reputation of the President’s words, maliciously misleading the reader with the opinion of two graphics editors dressed up as a serious research project. The President’s Twitter feed is an effective weapon against a negative press….. and the New York Times hates being irrelevant.

The real story? Here’s one person’s opinion who is not a graphic editor. I believe the NYTimes thinks Trump’s tweets are bad, harm them, defeat the narrative they attempt to present…. often in less than 240 characters. It frustrates the “journalists” at The NYTimes as they take daily swipes at the President and he shoots back. The Times wants the President to stand still, cooperate, so they can inflict pain. The New York Times desperately wants to silence the President of the United States.

Clearly, the President should tweet MORE!

Clearly, the NYTimes and their “nearly” 50 people and dozen editors and “journalists” would not spend MONTHS on such a vast project…….. if they were scared as hell by the President’s twitter feed. Oh yeah, the President’s Twitter feed is a Patriot Missile used on behalf of regular Americans.

Most of all, this piece from the NYTimes serves as a perfect propaganda lesson for us all. We’re not fooled and we can see clearly, now, once we identify the motivation and properly label the media’s bias.

Americans don’t “hate” people for no reason, especially not the President of the United States. We oppose those who tempt to seed hatred, pit us against each other with false “storytelling”, as The New York Times is doing today. We’re happy people, leaders in the world, who prefer to work together. We form our our opinions based on facts, not the feelings of two graphic designers. America is on the move!

• Enough with the naysayers, America is rebuilding again.
• We’re back.
• We believe all things are possible.
• The Debbie Downers need to get out of our way if they won’t help.

I’m feeling downright OLYMPIC today!

I’ll leave you with husband’s first meme.