The NY Times just stepped in it
Of all the major political news outlets that have sold their souls while chasing ratings and clicks and page views in the Trump era, the New York Times might be the most brazen and the most tragic. For a century we’ve counted on the Times to deliver the kind of deep dive investigative reporting that other news outlets couldn’t. But these days the Times seems more content to deep dive off the deep end.
For instance, everyone with a pulse understands that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to fully outlaw abortion in the state – based on nineteenth century legislation no less – is going to have a major impact on the 2024 election. Then there’s the New York Times, which just announced that the issue “may not sway voters” at all. Wait what?
The NY Times is basing this on – in its own words – “some people” in swing states. That’s right, some people. In other words, the Times decided what story it wanted to run, and then found the reactions of a few people it could cherry pick in order to support its ludicrous narrative.
But that’s what the game is all about these days, right? Ludicrous narratives. Intentionally ludicrous narratives, to be more precise. The more absurd of a contrarian hot take something is, the more likely it’ll go viral – if only because everyone comes out of the woodwork to condemn it. Hate clicks are still clicks, after all.
Back in the real world, the Arizona Supreme Court ruling on abortion will obviously have a major impact on the 2024 election. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the Democrats have outperformed in every election. This proves that abortion rights are now a major driver of voter turnout that pollsters and such can’t figure out how to parse.
But the New York Times knows that. It just wants the clicks, the notoriety, and the relevance that it knows it can get by saying the most stupidly inaccurate thing possible. After all, “the NY Times” is currently trending on Twitter as everyone piles on against the NY Times. So the newspaper got what it wanted out of this. The question is how we drag ourselves out of this deepening abyss that is political journalism.
