I love this Comment of the Day. It is as perfect an example as we will ever see of a thoughtful, careful, articulate, and civil rebuttal of a post or position here. This COTD, by EA veteran Zanshin, focused on my disgust regarding the New York Times’ self-indicting and desperate attempt to cover for Kamala Harris’s claim that she worked for McDonald’s as a student (you know, part of that humble middle class upbringing) by criticizing Donald Trump for not accepting her word as Discovered Truth. Harris asserting that anything happened is not evidence, based on her well-documented proclivities. In particular, I pointed out that a Kamala Harris résumé that didn’t list her supposed stint as a burgermeister was deceitfully employed by the Times to imply that her claim is true.

I apologize for getting this up a bit late; I didn’t not expect subsequent events, like Trump’s master-trolling of Harris (and the Times) by doing a campaign stunt having him acting like a McDonald’s employee, the absurd tantrum thrown by the Axis over it, Tim Walz whining on “The View” that the stunt was “disrespectful” to Mickey D employees (How?), and still, neither the company nor the Harris campaign has produced any evidence that Kamala’s tale isn’t in the same category as Walz’s claim that he was in combat and Joe Biden’s claim (among others) that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

The Times appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of “burden of proof.”

I love the comment and admire it, but as I stated in the thread, I don’t agree with it, though it is a “lucid, intelligent, well thought out” argument.

Here is Zanshin’s Comment of the Day on the post, “’Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!’ Hilarity of the Day: The New York Times Gets It Backward Trying To Cover For Harris And Vilifying Trump.”

***

Bite me!

That was my first thought when I read Jack’s statement (promise? warning?threat?) “I have yet to ban a commenter for doing no more than saying the mainstream media isn’t flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats, but the day is coming, and it’s coming fast.”

But the part in above statement regarding Jack’s judgement about the mainstream media is rather broad and at some places even vague. (note 1) And therefore very hard to prove or disprove

So, I decided to set myself a smaller task. Can I find an example in this blogpost where Jack writes negatively about mainstream media while not warranted by the facts. An example that even might suggest that Jack is a little bit biased against the mainstream media.

I think I have found such an example. Bear with me. The example I want to discuss is the one where Jack discusses the text in the Times regarding Ms. Harris having worked at McDonalds or not.

He uses a Times quote that begins with:

“Ms. Harris’s stint at McDonald’s may be one of the few blue-collar jobs she has held, according to a copy of her résumé from 1987 when she applied for a summer position at the Alameda County district attorney’s office.” 

…and ends with,

“The résumé does not mention her time at McDonald’s.“

Based on his analysis of this quote Jack concludes that,”this part of the Times’ humiliating debasement of its professional duties as an objective news source was genuinely funny.”

Waitwaitwait!

Did Jack just write that this part of the Times’ humiliating debasement of its professional duties as an objective news source was genuinely funny? Can he proof that? Is he lying? Or is it just sloppy language; a Trumpian hyperbole to troll his readers?

Just kidding. I think we all can agree that the essence of his analysis is not that this part of the Times article is genuinely funny but rather that the quote is a proof of the Times’ humiliating debasement of its professional duties as an objective news source.

Quite a claim. Let’s fact check this. Jack’s argumentation is as follows.

1. The Times is biased in favor of Harris.
2. Therefore, the Times wants to support Harris in her claim that she worked at McDonalds.
3. The Times does that by writing, “Ms. Harris’s stint at McDonald’s may be one of the few blue-collar jobs she has held, according to a copy of her résumé from 1987”.
4. [If the Times is an objective news source, the readers can assume correctly that Harris’ claim is supported by the Times.]
5. However, the Times end this part with, “The résumé does not mention her time at McDonald’s”.
6. (sub-) Conclusion: One cannot use a résumé that does not mention her time at McDonald’s as proof that she worked at McDonald’s.
7. Conclusion: This is (again) a proof of the Times’ humiliating debasement of its professional duties as an objective news source.

Bias makes you stupid. And the Times is stupid to try to fool her readers by this trick to use a résumé that does not mention her time at McDonald’s as proof that she worked at McDonald’s.

There are two options here. This ‘trick’ could be an error or a willfully obfuscation of the Truth. And it is certainly possible to suspect that Jack believes that both options are true.

So far, so good.

Here is my counter claim.

1. Jack is negatively biased against the mainstream media.
2. Bias makes you stupid.
3. Therefore he reads the Times part in a certain way resulting to the conclusions 6 and 7 as written above.
4. If one reads the Times part with an open mind, one comes to different conclusions.

Let me explain.

Jack focuses on the claim that Harris worked at McDonalds. And he is absolutely correct as he concludes that one can’t prove Harris her claim with a résumé that doesn’t contain any reference to working at McDonalds.

However, the above quoted sentence claims that “Ms. Harris’s stint at McDonald’s may be one of the few blue-collar jobs she has held“. (note 2)

The claim made here is: Harris has held few blue-collar jobs.

And the proof for this claim: Look at Harris’ résumé from 1987 when she applied for a summer position at the Alameda County district attorney’s office. See, no reference to any blue-collar job!

My conclusion:

The Times’ claim that Harris has held few blue-collar jobs is valid and probably true.

However, to prevent that readers would get confused and/or readers would claim that the Times is stupid or willfully misleading it’s readers they end this part of the Times article with the sentence, “The résumé does not mention her time at McDonald’s.”

So, the Times did not draw stupid conclusions, did not try to fool it’s readers and therefore did NOT debase of its professional duties as an objective news source.

Therefore the Times text as analysed above can NOT be used as proof that the mainstream media is flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats.

There, I said it. That is, more or less with more than less words.

_________

Notes

1. I realize that Jack in this sentence does not claim that mainstream media are “flamingly, ostentatiously, democratically and destructively biased in favor of progressives and Democrats”.
2. A more formal rewriting of this sentence would be, If Ms. Harris’s had a stint at McDonald’s this stint may be one of the few blue-collar jobs she has held”

__________________

It’s me…I just reread the comment to proof-read it, and can’t resist pointing out that the Times weird use of a résumé that doesn’t mention the alleged summer job in an article accusing Donald Trump of lying because he stated that Harris’s claim is another one of her own lies (and “another” is quite justified) is padding. The Times has no persuasive reasons to assume Harris’s claim is accurate, so it resorts to a “she always does it” rationalization: the fact that she didn’t include on her résumé other “blue-collar jobs” that she might have held is evidence that she held the one being questioned? Ridiculous. What the Times argument deceptively suggests (that’s what deceit is) would also support claims that Harris was a ditch-digger, a cage-girl in a disco and toll-taker.