âWalz is obviously unsuitable because objective reasons. Which Iâve just made up.â
I hope itâs not a goal. Why should it be a goal?
Do not all politicians seek to appease the New York Times above all!?!
Hey, at least ChatGPT has a lower chance of being as consistently wrong as some of the existing NYT opinion writers?
depends on what itâs trained on. theyâll probably use the pitchbot as source material
Remarkable that âout-of-touch liberalismâ and âsub-millionaire-class-championing progressivismâ seem to be synonyms in the average industry tycoonâs vanity media outlet and antonyms everywhere else in the US.
thatâs just par for the course. they wouldnât want to engage with what progressive policies actually stand for, people might like what they hear. better (for them) to paint anything leftish with the brush of failed liberalism.
( and, if there is something that both the left and the right agree on: itâs that american style liberalism doesnât work very well. although of course, the left and the right disagree about why ⌠but, again, it wouldnât serve corporate media interests to engage with that either. )
In no small part because the right has been dumping toxic sludge into it to confuse and redefine what liberalism means.
Yeah, I read that this morning, such a load of deflecting, unsubstantiated, gossiping shite. Dowdâs âcleverâ shtick hasnât aged well either. Itâs worth a look, if just for the rueful laughs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/opinion/election-dnc-convention.html
Nary a mention, of course, of whatâs likely the main part played by the corporate press, including the 200+ pieces run by The Times about how âSleepy Joe has got go.â