Refreshing! Keep reporting the human interest stories. It helps the politicians and their constituents to see " the other side" as people rather than enemies.
2
After Hillary’s stunning loss many people, columnists and serious publications (such as The Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic etc.) and media (including NPR, PBS, CNN etc.) in the political center and on the “left” decried their own lack of knowledge of/contact with individuals and parts of the country that strongly supported Trump. Many print and electronic media outlets hired more conservative reporters/columnists and produced serious pieces about people and places they felt they had not covered before. Many moderates, liberals and progressives went out of their way to read articles and books and to listen to or view presentations by more conservative writers, thinkers and media personalities.
But, and here is my question, I never heard about any attempts by those on the Right to learn more about the majority of American voters who supported Hillary or those who lived in “blue” parts of the country. Were there any meaningful attempts by right-wing “talk-radio” hosts, outlets like Fox News, Breightbart [spelling?] etc. to learn and teach their followers more about their fellow Americans who had different political perspectives? Did they hire more “liberals” to present additional perspectives?
Since Trump’s election has there been any significant attempts by opinion makers and thought-leaders on “the right” or by ordinary Trump voters to reach out to, or even just to better understand how their political opponents think and why they hold such different views?
5
Ok, let’s try this.
It looks good and I sub’d to the newsletter.
I only ask that you remain neutral, and refrain from cheerleading for one party or booing the other.
We need clarity here, some one to look past all the hype, the smoke screen and the raw emotions.
We do not need another writer exalting the glories of Socialism, or defending the indefensible.
If you could do that, you would be doing a great service to us readers.
5
I look forward to your coverage of the New York 19th district race. With the injection of racism in to the campaign by John Faso against Antonio Delgado.
1
The Nancy Pelosi story is great. If this NEWS letter gives me more of that, I’m in.
This thing is choppy and incomprehensible. But I'll give it a day or so before cancelling.
Most points made elude me, if it does in face make points.
So far so good. Enjoyed!!
So far so good! Keep it up!
1
An introduction to the people shaping politics? I’ve always wanted to meet the Koch brothers... and slap them.
2
Twice a day is too much. You are the new girl in town but there are others (newsletters). Best wishes!
1
Wonderful beginning.
Great start!
I have a question about politics:
How can the New York Times endorse Cuomo for governor and, at the same time, denounce the state's "dirty politics, nearly as sleazy as it gets" under his administration?
Moreover, how can the paper call for the electorate to turn out in record numbers in support of reform-driven candidates, but not mention support for Cynthia Nixon?
I understand that New York is a world apart, but shouldn't the paper be at minimum consistent in its endorsements? Shouldn't they call for the election of Nixon over Cuomo?
8
@avrds is spot on. I was incredulous reading the NY Times endorsement of Cuomo followed by an article about the corruption of his administration! Why? I think this newsletter would be a great place to address this question. I am betting there are hundreds of people wanting to know the answer. Frankly, I am guessing the rationale is not sound. I would love it if you would prove me wrong.
4
I really enjoyed reading your article. I found it both informative and intriguing. All the best and congrats to a good start.
3
You're off to a great start! The personal "first day" accounts from politicians were a nice touch.
As for recommendations, I personally would love to read more about what's going on internationally that we're all missing because of the deluge of Trump news. I know I speak for many when I say that we are quite literally over-obsessing on this one aspect of the news while ignoring other important international stories. (And I'm likely among the most guilty on this count!)
Of course, being we are on the eve of 9/11 and the release of Bob Woodward's much-anticipated new Trump-focused book, I'll no doubt look forward to yet another day of news focused on Trump and our nation. But maybe starting on September 12th, if there isn't yet another story involving Trump making headlines . . . . Sigh.
6
Best wishes! Hope this will cover the entire country with emphasis on making some sense of the DC scene.
5
Why don't you write an article about the importance of voting and what the procedures are to register to vote. I think a lot of people don't understand the process!
14
The people that need that information aren’t reading the NYT...
7
@Lama
This kind of "us/them" comment is helpful to no one. Of course there are people new to the voting process that read the NY Times. Of course there are NY Times readers who would be interested in in-depth information about the voting process.
What fun!
2
This will be good for the American people who are the 75%
who reject the extremism and racism of the Trump regime.
This should focus on the 75% and the issues that they have in their everyday lives, and concentrate on issues that are ignored by the main stream press who seem to focus on the GOP/Trump and the so called base of 25% - the media hubs are obsessed with a bunch of 71 year old white men who seem to hate black and brown people, gay marriage, a woman's right to choose the way that she wants to live, and they hate the Civil Rights for all, because they are manipulated by the GOP and their political media hubs.
Lets be glad that this new concept by The New York Times
will focus on the 75% of Americans who are the quiet majority,
and are siloed into silence - yet everyone is a living human being with dreams and hopes for the future and every life changes the world in many ways.
As Margret Mead the great anthropologist said, that 3 or 4
people can change the world when they work for their dream and objectives and never give up then they eventually change
the world - this has always been and always will be.
17
This is great. I appreciate the combination of digest and analysis.
4
Balanced, home-town...and readable. Off the start-line...nicely, nicely...
5
Good start. Thanks.
5