i realize there are other, more complex theories about the mechanisms by which the nyt's word & framing choices subtly influence the word & framing choices of other media outlets, thereby gradually trickling down to eventually reach, in some attenuated form, the low-info voters who decide elections

Sounds like you’ve got the answer to your question dawg

it probably doesn't move that many votes directly, but i think the nyt 'sanewashing' of trump's behavior and policies contributes to a sense among some that the stakes of this election are lower than they might otherwise think if trump was covered the same way they cover dems and other politicians

Yes, this - minus all the words to soften it - is exactly why you're wrong.

If you realize the argument is more complex, why did you attack the straw man, will?

but like -- my vague understanding of political science is that very few things demonstrably impact electoral outcomes. there's the economy, employment rates, composition of the electorate, *maybe* a bit of room for an all-timer of a gaffe or a hot-button issue to move the needle in a tight race

it's a very funny bit to include 18 qualifiers (subtle/gradual/trickling/eventually/etc) in your argument about how word choice doesn't actually matter. Guess those words choices mattered after all!