Tbf, Santos also came to power right under the nose of the NYT, and in their front yard. Embarrassing for them to be reduced to such a rag unfit for lining the cage of any sentient bird. Why do so many intellectuals still pretend it is worth supporting? Bail all the water you want, while the NYT pokes holes in the bottom of the boat.
Personally, I would pin the blame on the "perpetual present" model of newswriting. At the very least, it enables this sort of nonsense.
News media is so thoroughly obsessed with whatever is going on *right now* that it can't or won't provide the slightest bit of context. Every single line is either a quote referencing some incremental development of the present "story", or else a massively abstracted summary linking back to some earlier story from the same paper. The summaries have to be abstract of course, because they're summarizing something that is, itself, almost devoid of content. If they were to try to summarize the whole situation, the need to link dozens of prior articles might reveal how redundant their earlier coverage was, and suggest that perhaps tomorrow's article on the subject will also contain next to no new information.
One of the biggest German tech news is reporting about the Nazi problem here on Substack! 👍🏻
https://www.heise.de/news/Substack-laesst-Nazis-gewaehren-keine-Moderation-9581119.html
Thank you for this analysis. Twenty-seven items! Meanwhile, how many big stories got missed entirely during the Times’s merry bandwagon ride?
Tbf, Santos also came to power right under the nose of the NYT, and in their front yard. Embarrassing for them to be reduced to such a rag unfit for lining the cage of any sentient bird. Why do so many intellectuals still pretend it is worth supporting? Bail all the water you want, while the NYT pokes holes in the bottom of the boat.
Personally, I would pin the blame on the "perpetual present" model of newswriting. At the very least, it enables this sort of nonsense.
News media is so thoroughly obsessed with whatever is going on *right now* that it can't or won't provide the slightest bit of context. Every single line is either a quote referencing some incremental development of the present "story", or else a massively abstracted summary linking back to some earlier story from the same paper. The summaries have to be abstract of course, because they're summarizing something that is, itself, almost devoid of content. If they were to try to summarize the whole situation, the need to link dozens of prior articles might reveal how redundant their earlier coverage was, and suggest that perhaps tomorrow's article on the subject will also contain next to no new information.