Enough With the False Equivalencies!
The venerable New York Times — the “gray lady” of American journalism that not only determines what’s news but sets the standard for how it should be reported — has been describing the upcoming midterms as if it were a competition between two equally passionate and roughly equivalent sides.
受人尊敬的《纽约时报》——美国新闻业的“灰色女士”，不仅决定新闻内容，还为新闻报道方式设定标准——一直将即将到来的中期选举描述为两支同样热情且大致相当的双方之间的竞争。
For example, in describing the recent debate between the two candidates vying to represent Michigan in the Senate, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, the Times offered its readers an analysis of social media feeds —“one curated for a left-wing audience and one for a right-wing audience.”
例如，在描述最近争夺密歇根州参议员席位的两位候选人——共和党人迈克·罗杰斯和民主党人阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德之间的辩论时，《泰晤士报》向读者提供了对社交媒体信息的分析——“一个是为左翼受众策划的，一个是为右翼受众策划的。”
The Times did this by collecting more than 13,000 posts from X, and then — using a social media analytics company — categorizing the posts according to their apparent political leanings and whether they were “personal attacks and criticism” or concerned a particular issue area.
为此，《纽约时报》从 X 收集了 13,000 多个帖子，然后使用社交媒体分析公司，根据帖子明显的政治倾向以及它们是否是“人身攻击和批评”或涉及特定问题领域对帖子进行分类。
Then the Times presented it all in a vertical graph, starting with the beginning of the debate at the top and the end at the bottom, with responses to El-Sayed on the left side and responses to Rogers on the right.
然后《泰晤士报》以垂直图表的形式呈现了这一切，从顶部开始辩论，底部结束，左边是对埃尔赛义德的回应，右边是对罗杰斯的回应。
What did the Times report that might be useful to its readers?
《纽约时报》报道了哪些可能对其读者有用的内容？
It turned out that “viewers following the event on social media likely came away with two very different impressions, depending on their own political inclinations.”
事实证明，“在社交媒体上关注这一事件的观众可能会得到两种截然不同的印象，这取决于他们自己的政治倾向。”
Well, duh.
嗯，呃。
People choose social media depending on their political inclinations to begin with.
人们首先根据自己的政治倾向选择社交媒体。
The Times then suggested that the two very different impressions were roughly equal, both in the degree to which they distorted the truth and in how troubling we should find those distortions.
《泰晤士报》随后表示，这两种截然不同的印象大致相同，无论是在歪曲事实的程度上，还是在我们应该发现这些歪曲的令人不安的程度上。
“An algorithm attuned to Democrats …
“一种适合民主党的算法......
served up commentary depicting the Democratic candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, as a firebrand who delivered quick-witted attacks that left his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, scrambling.
发表的评论将民主党候选人阿卜杜勒·赛义德描述为煽动者，他发动的机智攻击让他的共和党对手迈克·罗杰斯手忙脚乱。
A feed curated for Republicans …
为共和党人策划的提要……
created an impression of Mr. Rogers as calm and composed onstage as he landed blistering critiques of Dr. El-Sayed.”
罗杰斯先生在台上对埃尔赛义德博士进行了激烈的批评，给人留下了冷静沉着的印象。
When the candidates talked about the Iran war, according to the Times , “left-leaning users” praised “Dr. El-Sayed’s opposition to the conflict” while “right-leaning users” posted “personal criticism of Dr. El-Sayed’s Muslim beliefs.” As the debate shifted to the economy, “left-leaning users” posted about affordability, while the posts of “right-leaning users” were “often laden with personal attacks against Dr. El-Sayed.”
据《泰晤士报》报道，当候选人谈论伊朗战争时，“左倾用户”称赞“赛义德博士反对这场冲突”，而“右倾用户”则发表了“对赛义德博士的穆斯林信仰的个人批评”。随着争论转向经济，“左倾用户”发布了有关负担能力的帖子，而“右倾用户”的帖子“经常充满对埃尔-赛义德博士的人身攻击”。
As the debate progressed, the Times reported, these “dueling narratives” became more pronounced.
据《泰晤士报》报道，随着辩论的进展，这些“对立的叙述”变得更加明显。
When Dr. El-Sayed again referred to the economy, left-leaning accounts “posted about the high cost of living” while Rogers’s supporters posted that “high gas prices are only temporary.” When Dr. El-Sayed talked about improving healthcare, Rogers’s supporters expressed “skepticism about Dr. El-Sayed’s medical background.” (The Times then noted that although Dr. El-Sayed has a medical degree from Columbia University, he has never practiced medicine.)
当埃尔-赛义德博士再次提到经济时，左倾账户“发布了高生活成本”，而罗杰斯的支持者则发布了“高油价只是暂时的”。当埃尔-赛义德医生谈到改善医疗保健时，罗杰斯的支持者表达了“对埃尔-赛义德医生的医学背景的怀疑”。 （《泰晤士报》随后指出，尽管埃尔-赛义德博士拥有哥伦比亚大学的医学学位，但他从未行医。）
So what is the average reader or voter supposed to take away from this so-called analysis?
那么，普通读者或选民应该从这种所谓的分析中得到什么？
Note for starters that all the responses analyzed by the Times were on Musk’s “X” — which already leans authoritarian.
首先请注意，《纽约时报》分析的所有回应都针对马斯克的“X”——它已经倾向于独裁。
Beyond this is circular reasoning.
除此之外就是循环推理。
People identified as "left-leaning users” were assumed to be “left-leaning” because their comments showed they were for El-Sayed and against Rogers, and “right-leaning users” were “right-leaning” because they were for Rogers and against El-Sayed.
被认定为“左倾用户”的人被认为是“左倾”，因为他们的评论显示他们支持埃尔·赛义德并反对罗杰斯，而“右倾用户”被认为是“右倾”，因为他们支持罗杰斯并反对埃尔·赛义德。
The worst ad populum fallacy is that both sides deserve equal weight.
最糟糕的大众谬论是双方都应该受到同等重视。
They engaged in “dueling narratives” and they posted about the same number of comments.
他们进行了“决斗叙事”，并且发表了大约相同数量的评论。
Even the graph represented a kind of equivalence.
甚至图表也代表了一种等价。
Rubbish.
垃圾。
Doesn’t The New York Times have a responsibility to tell readers that Rogers has been a rubber-stamp for Trump, including Trump’s war in Iran; that he voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and surveillance legislation; that he has a political record of suppressing Black votes in Detroit and across Michigan; and that he has long represented corporate interests over the interests of average working people?
《纽约时报》难道没有责任告诉读者，罗杰斯一直是特朗普的橡皮图章，包括特朗普对伊朗的战争；他投票支持《爱国者法案》、伊拉克战争和监视立法；他有压制底特律和密歇根州黑人选票的政治记录；而且他长期以来一直代表企业利益高于普通劳动人民的利益？
And doesn’t the Times also have a responsibility to tell its readers that El-Sayed takes the opposite position on these — and is pushing for a single-payer healthcare system, breaking up large healthcare monopolies, taxing billionaire wealth and regulating AI and data centers, banning corporate campaign contributions, ending gerrymandering, reforming the Supreme Court, and ending U.S. military aid to Israel?
难道《泰晤士报》没有责任告诉读者，埃尔-赛义德在这些问题上采取了相反的立场——他正在推动单一付款人医疗保健系统，打破大型医疗保健垄断，对亿万富翁财富征税，监管人工智能和数据中心，禁止企业竞选捐款，结束不公正划分选区，改革最高法院，并结束美国对以色列的军事援助？
Two weeks from an election that will determine whether guardrails will be erected against America’s first dictator, and what does The New York Times do?
距离大选还有两周时间，这场选举将决定是否针对美国第一位独裁者设立护栏，《纽约时报》会做什么？
Depict it like any other contest between America’s two major political parties — in which they present “dueling narratives” from their “left-leaning” or “right-leaning” perspectives.
就像美国两大政党之间的任何其他竞争一样，他们从“左倾”或“右倾”的角度提出“决斗叙事”。
This depiction is irresponsible and dangerously fraudulent.
这种描述是不负责任的，而且是危险的欺诈行为。
Don’t accept it.
不接受。
Wow.
哇。
Taking X as your source of samples is like staking out men’s rooms to learn whether women really have periods.
以 X 作为样本来源就像在男厕所里观察女性是否真的有月经一样。
“Some supported the contention, whereas some contended that so-called periods were either malingering or threats.”
“一些人支持这一论点，而另一些人则认为所谓的时期要么是装病，要么是威胁。”
Very enlightening information, Dr. Reich.
非常有启发性的信息，Reich 博士。
Not at all surprised.
一点也不惊讶。
I believe that over recent times the NYT has become more equivocal.
我认为《纽约时报》最近变得更加模棱两可。
I find myself reading The Guardian more than the Times as a result.
因此，我发现自己阅读《卫报》的次数多于《泰晤士报》。
It is sad commentary that historically venerated American news institutions have become more acquiescent to giving right and wrong equal weight.
令人悲哀的是，历来受人尊敬的美国新闻机构变得更加默许正确和错误同等重要。