Just found an interesting, informative link to a New York Times map of how Donald Trump won this General Election 2016. Here’s the link below. You can click on the states or the listing of the states below to see the exact popular vote count for all the counties, plus percentage breakdowns and colorized maps … Read more
Big kudos to New York Times columnist Seth Stephens-Davidowitz for his revealing report on the explosion in interest in black market abortion procedures, based on internet searches, in the aftermath of a plethora of restrictions passed by states often under the (ironic) guise of “safety”.
RESENTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES SELMA SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6 AT 7:00PM | REGULAR ADMISSION PRICES at The Loft Cinema, 3233 E. Speedway Blvd. Tucson “See the Oscar-winning 2014 drama Selma, followed by an onstage discussion with journalist and author Diane McWhorter, whose acclaimed book “Carry Me Home,” an account of the civil rights revolution in … Read more
Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com
Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the last GOP presidential debate was following it on Twitter and seeing feminists I respect declare Carly Fiorina the “winner” and express admiration of her fierceness and command of information (bad information but, whatever, I guess). While I do agree that Fiorina handled the question about Donald Trump’s buffoonish comment about her face deftly, I had to shake my head at tweets by feminist academics lavishing praise on her performance when these same feminist academics would fail a freshman student for dissembling as much as Fiorina did. Being a glib liar, and especially about things that tremendously affect vulnerable women (like Planned Parenthood) is not worthy of anything but contempt. And it’s not remarkable either but some feminists continue to be “enthralled” by Carly Fiorina even as they are (rightly) alarmed about how anti-women many of her stances are.
Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com
I don’t buy NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan’s explanation for the paper’s glaringly flawed “exclusive” story (splashed across the front page and digital platforms) about a criminal investigation on Hillary Clinton over her emails. No, what happened appeared to yet another instance of “Clinton Rules” though I do agree with the general point about scoop journalism Sullivan makes here:
There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.
The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.