I saw a similar story this morning. Encounters between migrants and border officials were down 75% between Dec 23 and Nov 24. Sure would have been nice if the NYT spent as much time focusing on that rather than Biden's debate performance.
I saw a similar story this morning. Encounters between migrants and border officials were down 75% between Dec 23 and Nov 24. Sure would have been nice if the NYT spent as much time focusing on that rather than Biden's debate performance.
Why not both? I'm glad they covered his debate performance. Had Biden been the nominee, Trump's popular vote margin would have been much larger than the 1.5%, as of today, he won.
Or Fox News or any news really. I woild love to see someone on CBS news say border encounters are down 75% so. Why can't the Democrats do a commercial on Fox News that states those stats.
Anything that contradicts their Pravda-like line is anethma to Faux News. By allowing stats that contradict them to appear unanswered at the time (is Faux News going to start running their own commercials to contradict those you are yearning for? I doubt that. It may be that we have to agree to differ since it will never be put to the test.
I expect that sometime in January or February those same numbers will be used by the Trump administration to eliminate the threatened tariffs. I expect him to take credit for lower immigration and fenanyl deaths that are currently in back page stories. They will suddenly be front page news not long after Jan. 20.
Coverage on this issue is shockingly bad in general --- especially on the numbers, which always fluctuate, including seasonally, and for reasons that are not always as clear or simple as they may seem. Aside from the round-up-the-usual-suspects human-interest stories, there's not much to help people think through this issue intelligently.
I wouldn't put this down to an anti-Biden media bias{*} --- these are different beats, and Biden's debate disaster was not just newsworthy but historic --- but to despair-inducingly inadequate reporting.
----------------------------------
{*} don't mean to put words in your mouth; adjust as needed
It is bias. Cries of "open borders" were flung around all year. Yet, substantial real reductions in borders interactions happened and it was crickets. Noone will ever convince me that omissions were anything but deliberate.
And drama. LetтАЩs not forget the DRAMA! Immigrant army crossing border. US under attack. Is always more dramatic than fentanyl supply drying up or immigration is down. By the way, as we all know, most of the fentanyl comes in by truck or even by US citizens loooking to make a quick buck.
I saw a similar story this morning. Encounters between migrants and border officials were down 75% between Dec 23 and Nov 24. Sure would have been nice if the NYT spent as much time focusing on that rather than Biden's debate performance.
Why not both? I'm glad they covered his debate performance. Had Biden been the nominee, Trump's popular vote margin would have been much larger than the 1.5%, as of today, he won.
Or Fox News or any news really. I woild love to see someone on CBS news say border encounters are down 75% so. Why can't the Democrats do a commercial on Fox News that states those stats.
Because Fox would not allow that kind of commercial, no matter how much they were being offered.
Really? Is that true? I would money would talk. And contrary opinions would cause more interest to their network.
Anything that contradicts their Pravda-like line is anethma to Faux News. By allowing stats that contradict them to appear unanswered at the time (is Faux News going to start running their own commercials to contradict those you are yearning for? I doubt that. It may be that we have to agree to differ since it will never be put to the test.
I expect that sometime in January or February those same numbers will be used by the Trump administration to eliminate the threatened tariffs. I expect him to take credit for lower immigration and fenanyl deaths that are currently in back page stories. They will suddenly be front page news not long after Jan. 20.
Absolutely. All our politics are being controlled. We really don't as much power and choice as we think..
I am not taking any bets against you, Linda.
Coverage on this issue is shockingly bad in general --- especially on the numbers, which always fluctuate, including seasonally, and for reasons that are not always as clear or simple as they may seem. Aside from the round-up-the-usual-suspects human-interest stories, there's not much to help people think through this issue intelligently.
I wouldn't put this down to an anti-Biden media bias{*} --- these are different beats, and Biden's debate disaster was not just newsworthy but historic --- but to despair-inducingly inadequate reporting.
----------------------------------
{*} don't mean to put words in your mouth; adjust as needed
Agree, Amanda.
Clicks. It's always about the clicks.
"Border Crossings Down!" - meh. . .
"Hordes of Immigrants!" - Wow! - what. . ?
It was ever thus. Before the internet, the watchword for local news broadcasts was "If it bleeds, it leads".
Dog bites man, not even on the back page.
Man bites dog, lead above the fold, page 1.
It is bias. Cries of "open borders" were flung around all year. Yet, substantial real reductions in borders interactions happened and it was crickets. Noone will ever convince me that omissions were anything but deliberate.
And drama. LetтАЩs not forget the DRAMA! Immigrant army crossing border. US under attack. Is always more dramatic than fentanyl supply drying up or immigration is down. By the way, as we all know, most of the fentanyl comes in by truck or even by US citizens loooking to make a quick buck.