this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
664 points (82.2% liked)
Political Memes
8800 readers
3523 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you know what it was in response to? I'm a daily times reader and I don't remember seeing something specifically anti-trans, but it is easy to miss content.
Edit: I dug into this a little bit and am left a little confused. GLAAD feels that the NYTs is at fault for presenting both sides of an issue. However, there is a difference between the investigative journalism and opinion pieces. As a reader, I want the nyt to present the position of people I disagree with and let me make up my own mind. The opinion pieces tilt more than a little left and that is the right place for articles that state more than just the facts.
Reading the GLAAD page on the topic was hard to follow (https://glaad.org/new-york-times-inaccurate-coverage-transgender-people-being-weaponized-against-transgender/) and I found their examples puzzling. They complain about a times article that states that most doctors believe puberty blockers are a safe and reversible way to push the pause button. They then go on to say that Republicans disagree. But that is just the facts of the situation, and the reader needs to decide if they trust doctors or politicians more on the effect of medical care.
Let me be clear: the Republicans are wrong on trans issues and I am against all these laws that have occurred. But I don't want my investigative journalism to take a side. I want them to state that a preponderance of the medical community supports these treatments, which they do state.
But that's my two cents I suppose. That being said, I agree that people who play the both sides argument are wrong. But am investigative, non-opinion piece is the one place that should always present both sides.
I think their framing of things is problematic in that it kind of lets it seem like an open question whether puberty blockers are safe, when it's actually not. They effectively elevate the talking points of critics by implicitly giving equal weight to them. One side is using data and the other is relying on blatant fear mongering.
The investigative coverage could have focused on setting the record straight re: the data but instead the takeaway for many readers could just be, "people are arguing about this so make up your own mind, I guess"
That's a fair way to feel. What I'll say though is that as a times reader, all of their investigative pieces are like that regardless of topic. About the only topic they do brow beat with data is global warming, and even then they do report on what the opposition says or does. As a daily reader, the trans article I've read don't feel differently structured than the other topics, so I think some of this is lack of familiarity with the times tone and style.
The reason I pay for the times is because it's one of a small number of papers that still does investigative journalism and will present all sides. I like to read about people who I disagree with. It challenges me and my position and leaves me more informed and better able to counter regressive policy positions. So I think there is and will be this natural tension between the times and activist groups, regardless of the issue.
I've taken a look at recent articles by NYT on trans issues and came accross this: https://archive.is/Msylf
It does certainly "shows" the two sides of the issue, but spends far too much time explaining individual stories and very little on what the actual research says. If I was the member of a minority that is currently being scrutinized and how many difficulties they should have in life is up for debate, I would also get angry at journalists who spare no effort at presenting "both sides" of those who are claiming that it is raining and those who claim that it's sunny without actually reporting on the weather.