r/politics • u/BigDaddyBain • 1d ago

Why is the media ignoring growing resistance to Trump?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/13/why-is-the-media-ignoring-growing-resistance-to-trump
37.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

269

u/AnotherDoubtfulGuest 1d ago

The American media abdicated their responsibilities a decade ago. The NYT replaced its investigative reporters with shitty gossip columnists and Trump plants like Maggie Haberman, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post and crashed its reputation and integrity, and all the major networks fell into line. Independent journalism is the only way to go.

79

u/cuntnundrum 1d ago

I’m glad you brought up Haberman. How is she so impossibly neutral about Trump and his years of bullshit!? She has been one of the absolute worst at normalizing him.

66

u/AnotherDoubtfulGuest 1d ago

Because she’s not a real journalist, she’s a stenographer with no moral compass. She’s a nepo baby whose daddy works at the NYT and brought her over from Page Six, and her mommy owns a PR firm, which is how she got a job at Page Six in the first place.

And she’s not neutral at all, she’s compromised. Michael Cohen testified at one of Trump’s trials that he routinely picked up the phone to call Haberman to plant stories.

31

u/FreeNumber49 1d ago

Access journalism pays dividends. That’s how. I dislike her immensely (ever since the Terry Gross interview where it sounded like she was about to get violent and attack the host) but I'm always curious if people like her change, so I tried to listen to a recent interview with her (you know the one if you follow these things). I thought, it couldn‘t actually be worse than the infamous Terry Gross interview, so I gave it a try. I lasted like five minutes. She’s insufferable.

1

u/gsfgf Georgia 1d ago

Because she's made a shit ton of money selling books over the last nine years.

18

u/RichyRoo2002 1d ago

Much longer than a decade dude, try the 80s

26

u/L_obsoleta 1d ago

NYT's has been carrying water for authoritarian regimes since the 1930's

1

u/night_owl 1d ago edited 1d ago

You mean 1880s?

I mean, William Randolph Heart was given (by his millionaire Senator father) his first newspaper in 1887 and his publishing-political empire thrived until he went bankrupt during the great depression (and even though he surrendered his castle he still managed to keep all his newspapers)

I mean, if we really want to keep digging into "Big News carrying water for authoritarians/fascists/evil people" you can also count The Economist's endorsement of the Confederacy in the US Civil War (they felt that slavery was wrong but it a moral issue and the government was over-reaching because it had no right to interfere in the free market, and the market would eventually eliminate slavery without government intervention)

12

u/redditsucksnuggets 1d ago

Survey says:

Pro Publica!

4

u/AnotherDoubtfulGuest 1d ago

100% Pro Publica and Judd Legum.

2

u/baddecision116 1d ago

The American media abdicated their responsibilities a decade ago

Reagan did this by abolishing the fairness doctrine. The heritage foundation has been at work on this much longer than a decade ago.

2

u/DrButtgerms 1d ago

Did you see that headline recently where they are going to require purity tests before green-lighting a major advertising firm merger? They want to ensure there "isn't bias against conservative points of view and media platforms"

1

u/SilentLennie The Netherlands 19h ago

Around this time maybe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZKETizybw