The New York Times' revealed preference

The publisher and editors of the paper record have told us ad nauseam how seriously they take the threat of a second Trump presidency and how conscientious they are about doing their job, but if you want to know what's really important to them, you should probably consider what economists might call revealed preference.

That front page did more damage to the Times' credibility than Jayson Blair ever did.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) October 3, 2024

Thanks to an unusually frank piece by reporter Amy Chozick discussed here, we know that the staff and leadership of the New York Times were aware of what they were doing, that they were helping a hostile foreign power influence election. They just thought they could get away with it.

Stephen Colbert normally hits three or four topics in his monologue. Last night, he did the entire 10 minutes on the Jack Smith January 6 filing. This isn't the first time we've gotten better and/or more timely coverage of a Trump story from the Late Show than from the New York Times. Just this week, we saw Colbert talking about  the disturbing violent imagery and fascist elements of Trump's weekend speeches of full day before the New York Times mentioned them, and doing so in a more direct and informative way.

I could say something similar about the Daily Show, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyer, and a number of others. This is partly a comment quality of political humor at the moment – – lots of these people have stepped up to the plate – – but it's mainly a reflection on how so many in the establishment press have failed to live up to the moment.