The Times also covered President Joe Biden’s speech to a Pride celebration at the White House without speaking to any of the trans people who attended.
Why is this one considered a knock against them? Were they not supposed to cover this? The vast majority of the article is quoting Biden's speech, which is decidedly not an anti-trans talking point.
This is being held up as on par as speech by DeSantis in the same paragraph.
18
Zuberi 👀 - 1.7yr
Biden's catholic ass doesn't give one single fuck about the LGBTQ+ community
4
Bibliotectress - 1.7yr
I don't care what he personally believes. He made a statement today in support of trans Americans, so that's a pretty big win.
11
whoreticulture @lemmy.world - 1.7yr
idk a win to me would be that my friends don't have to crowdfund for their healthcare
3
Maddier1993 @programming.dev - 1.7yr
You're trying to pin a problem no U.S president of recent memory would have even attempted to solve on Biden?
3
whoreticulture @lemmy.world - 1.7yr
He is complicit, yes
2
BananaTrifleViolin @lemmy.world - 1.7yr
This sounds nonsensical. Not every article needs pop-vox commentary from specific members of a community.
It's a bizarre metric to create and then use to try and attack a broadsheet newspaper.
9
squirrel - 1.7yr
The NYT is not just a newspaper, it styles itself as "the paper of record". So yes, it is perfectly valid to set high standards for it.
In that regard it is not too high a standard to require that a paper that writes about a certain community talks to members of that community. You cannot write a credible article about (let's say) Los Angeles and only quote people from New York. For any newspaper that would be considered absurd and lazy.
11
Dasus @lemmy.world - 1.7yr
I can see both your and @BananaTrifleViolin s point.
You're not wrong, but neither is he. If there's an article about some piece of anti-trans legislation that would effect trans people, I think pretty often the interviews on "how do you feel about the legislation" would get similar answers: "I don't like it and I'd like to have the same rights as other people"
That's only if you assume that trans people can't have legal or other specific knowledge to contribute. Trans people come from all walks of life and it's not hard to find people who could tell a newspaper about historical precedence, provide medical background information or do political analysis. It's not just about people's feelings after all.
2
Dasus @lemmy.world - 1.7yr
If they're providing objective analysis, it shouldn't really matter where it comes from?
I'm sure the New York Times is trying to get the best objective information on a subject. If the experts they find aren't trans, should they then look specifically for experts on the matter, who also happen to be trans?
2
Facebones @reddthat.com - 1.7yr
I've noticed it a few times myself. Maybe it's time to unsub. 🤷
squirrel in ghazi
Seen but not heard: The New York Times failed to quote trans people in over 60% of 2023 stories on anti-trans legislation
https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/seen-not-heard-new-york-times-failed-quote-trans-people-over-60-2023-stories-antiImagine running a story about abortion and not adding any female commentary, racial equality and not boosting black voices. SMH
But such is The Tradition
Darn. I guess those employees all signing an open letter saying the NYT was anti trans might have some merit
Context https://www.npr.org/2023/02/15/1157181127/nyt-letter-trans
Why is this one considered a knock against them? Were they not supposed to cover this? The vast majority of the article is quoting Biden's speech, which is decidedly not an anti-trans talking point.
This is being held up as on par as speech by DeSantis in the same paragraph.
Biden's catholic ass doesn't give one single fuck about the LGBTQ+ community
I don't care what he personally believes. He made a statement today in support of trans Americans, so that's a pretty big win.
idk a win to me would be that my friends don't have to crowdfund for their healthcare
You're trying to pin a problem no U.S president of recent memory would have even attempted to solve on Biden?
He is complicit, yes
This sounds nonsensical. Not every article needs pop-vox commentary from specific members of a community.
It's a bizarre metric to create and then use to try and attack a broadsheet newspaper.
The NYT is not just a newspaper, it styles itself as "the paper of record". So yes, it is perfectly valid to set high standards for it.
In that regard it is not too high a standard to require that a paper that writes about a certain community talks to members of that community. You cannot write a credible article about (let's say) Los Angeles and only quote people from New York. For any newspaper that would be considered absurd and lazy.
I can see both your and @BananaTrifleViolin s point.
You're not wrong, but neither is he. If there's an article about some piece of anti-trans legislation that would effect trans people, I think pretty often the interviews on "how do you feel about the legislation" would get similar answers: "I don't like it and I'd like to have the same rights as other people"
Tangentially related sketch
Mitchell and Webb Train Safety
That's only if you assume that trans people can't have legal or other specific knowledge to contribute. Trans people come from all walks of life and it's not hard to find people who could tell a newspaper about historical precedence, provide medical background information or do political analysis. It's not just about people's feelings after all.
If they're providing objective analysis, it shouldn't really matter where it comes from?
I'm sure the New York Times is trying to get the best objective information on a subject. If the experts they find aren't trans, should they then look specifically for experts on the matter, who also happen to be trans?
I've noticed it a few times myself. Maybe it's time to unsub. 🤷