Letter to The Run Up

Here's a letter that I just sent to the New York Times's podcast, The Run Up.  I suppose that it speaks for itself.  Mainly, I'm a little blown that The Times is continuing to report with an overt anti-Trump bias, even after he won the election.  That is, they're stubbornly remaining inside their deluded leftist bubble.

Perhaps more clearly than any time other than 9/11, we can see with this election that the media is completely out of touch with reality--just days before the election this podcast gave Trump a 15% chance of winning, and were answering questions about what Hillary would be doing the first days in offce.

Leaving us to wonder, again, where to turn in order to find reliable and substantive news?  

Although I've enjoyed listening to The Run Up and it's charming host--especially your recent "Bonus" episode--I found it disconcerting that in neither of your other post election episodes ("How Did that Happen" and "Denial. Anger. Now Acceptance") did you offer even a glimmer of congratulations or fascination towards the president elect, when so much is due to him.
This absence is an unforgivable omission, making you come across as myopic liberals rather than journalists (and surely also explains how you missed reporting on the likelihood of a Trump win.)
Titling the 2nd podcast "Denial. Anger. Acceptance" so comically betrays your anti-Trump bias that it borders on satire.  Recall that this candidate you're writhing over accepting in fact just won the presidency, and so obviously the number of people elated about him and the victory are plenteous -- yet you bypassed reporting on any of them.  At.  All.  
And how about some analysis of (and fascination for) Trump and his unusual yet winning campaign—that Matthew Dowd described as a “Somali Pirate with a few guys on the boat”.  They hired a fraction of Hillary’s paid staff and spent a fraction of her campaign (as well as Obama’s and Romney’s).  Couldn't your podcast provide some research into how it is they won?
And if you're at all interested in honest reporting, at this point you need to be saying that a man who singlehandedly (I say singlehandedly since his veteran political advisors discouraged his unconventional campaign strategy) beat two political dynasties (Clintons, Bushes)--primarily with a Twitter account--is a political genius.  And you'd need to have some deference towards him. (If calling Trump a genius is beyond you, and I think that it is, you need to realize that your characterizing him instead as a misogynist and dangerous loon ired the "deplorables" (or, as Nate Cohn, in minutes 13:56 of "Denial. Anger. Now Acceptance" called them, "lower-information voters") so disillusioned by you, the establishment, and propelled them to come out and tip the scales in MI, WI, PA--and so you can also take some credit for his victory).
There's so, so much that you need to say in the interests of honest reporting regarding Trump.  If you're going to include a podcast entirely composed of liberal porn, giving your progressive listeners something to masturbate to (the anecdote, retold in Dowd's 64-year-old-woman's baby talk, about the privileged senator's daughter crying over Trump's victory is so priceless), then in the interest of balanced reporting also do an interview with Roger Stone or Steven Mnuchin, if you can get at them.  Or do a comprehensive and congratulatory analysis of Trump's campaign.  (And I probably also should point this out--interviewing David Duke or his ilk would be a cheap shot.  Not everyone who voted for Trump is a white, toothless, racist, uneducated Appalachian).    
You are, after all, representing the NYT.  Not a personal podcast recorded in your garage.  Your wailing and commiserating is totally out of line.  
Julie Anderton

No comments

Post a Comment