Image 01 Image 03

NY Times Headline Epitomizes MSM Myopia Over Trump

NY Times Headline Epitomizes MSM Myopia Over Trump

Scarborough: Halperin and Nate Silver Were Savaged by MSM Leaders for Suggesting Trump had a Chance

Want to understand the bubble in which the elite, liberal media lives? Check out the banner headline of today’s New York Times: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”

On today’s Morning Joe, Mark Halperin nailed it: “Look at the headline of this story. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not “disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House” or “the country votes for fundamental change.” The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened.

Scarborough also reported that Halperin and Nate Silver had been savaged by leading-but-unnamed MSM reporters and major news anchors for asserting—not that Trump would win—but that he even had a chance to win.

MARK HALPERIN: Look at the headline of this story. Look at the headline of this story. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not “disaffected Americans have a champion going to the White House” or “the country votes for fundamental change.” The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened. It’s amazing. It’s amazing to me that this is the headline of the New York Times.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Look at this. Look at this. This is staggering. It really is, Mark. I’m glad you brought this up.

HALPERIN: It’s The Onion.

JOE: This shows that the editors of the New York Times–I have the greatest respect for. They don’t get it.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: This is about them!

JOE: This is a Saturday Night Live skit. You went to a cocktail party the night before and you decided to write this.

HALPERIN: When I thought Trump had a chance to lose, which I did. But I thought he had a chance to win it. I said to liberals, he’s going to get 42 million votes. 42 million people are going to vote for him. What are they voting for? And that this is their headline.

MIKA: That’s their newsroom [Ed.: i.e., not the editorial page, but the supposedly objective news side of the paper.]

HALPERIN: If a Democratic candidate who was said to have a 10% of winning by the New York Times had ended up winning and winning red states as Trump won blue states, I don’t think that would have been the headline.

JOE: No.

HALPERIN: And I’ll just say again, the responsibility of journalists is to not report on their biases. It’s to go out and understand the country through the prism of the election and say why are people feeling the way they’re feeling? I am just stunned at how people are reacting.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


thalesofmiletus | November 10, 2016 at 8:37 am

They know their audience. Newspapers have ceased to be a viable business model and are now just trophies for the elite. The NYT is basically a community newsletter for SJW’s at this point.

CaliforniaJimbo | November 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

It appears the MSM (in their many outlets) do not seem to grasp the takeaway from the election. They stopped reporting on the election and tried to shape its outcome.
The only reason why the MSM covered Trump so heavily during the Republican Primary is that they assumed he would lose in November. They made a concerted effort to ensure he got the nomination.
When the general election came, they did a complete 180. Now if DJT had behaved like Romney, McCain or other Republican nominees, he would have backed off at the first MSM objection. He would not have pushed back.
I believe that HRC had her list of women accusers at the ready in case DJT brought up her husband.
The MSM held both candidates to two different standards. The voter decided that we were not going to accept such tomfoolery.
Pres. Obama will not have a legacy because he governed by executive order. Executive orders can be undone with a stroke of a pen.
The ACA can also be changed via budget reconciliation. Maybe Pres. Obama should have thought of that when he rammed the ACA through. He could have taken a more traditional legislative path (He had the 60 seat majority in the senate and a house majority)
Honestly, President Obama did not know how to work with congress. His time in the senate was spent running for President. He also appears to have been given bad advice from his advisors. While DJT has no elected office experience, he is used to being accountable to stockholders and board members. He knows how to deal.
For America’s sake, we need significant change and reform.

They were clueless about middle America when the election started and they are clueless today. Are we surprised?
A newspaper for the elite and beautiful of our society!

Same goes for their coverage of the protests. Remember the protests when Obama was elected? Oh, right, there weren’t any.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to billdyszel. | November 10, 2016 at 9:25 am

    George Soros has really opened his wallet wide for this one. Glad the astroturf will get it out of their system long before inauguration day…

      C. Lashown in reply to thalesofmiletus. | November 10, 2016 at 9:58 am

      I only wish that were true. Soros and his ilk are fighting a decades long (generational) ideological war. Simply recall how the Democrats rallied shortly after 9/11 against President Bush. The constant anti-Bush rhetoric prepared society for Obama. They’re still actively pushing their agenda with BLM and SJW movements.

      Since President Trump is so refreshingly outspoken, I can easily imagine next summer reflecting a summer of burning cities and riots. They will consider this Clinton defeat as an opportunity to learn, and tweak their next conflict. In 4-8 years an entirely new crop of worthless SJW drones will be available for cannon fodder, manning the barricades of tyranny.

Like a blind squirrel stumbling upon a nut, Michael Moore nailed it when he said the election of Trump would be “…the biggest F*CK YOU in history…”

And that FU is directed squarely at smug liberal pricks everywhere, especially those who write for rags like the NYT.

    MattMusson in reply to Paul. | November 10, 2016 at 10:17 am

    We may not have liked everything about Donald Trump. But we DAMN SURE did not want anymore Elitist Bullsh#t!

“The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run the New York Times are about what’s happened. It’s amazing [how self-centered the left is].”

HE: Now I realize that this is our first date, and I’ve somewhat monopolized the conversation, having spoken almost nonstop for that last hour about myself, my interests, my friends, my career, my accomplishments and my SAT scores, and whatnot. I shouldn’t be so self-centered. I’d like to hear from you.

So what do you think of all my successes?

SHE: Ahhhh,

I think Congress goes back in session on November 14th, but they’ve already decided to keep Ryan as speaker. How does it help Trump’s agenda that the pro-immigration man is going to remain as speaker. Did they not get the message.

I have to find my congressman and ask him about this, and building the wall, et cetera. When he was first elected in 2013 for 2014, he said building a fence would make us like East Germany. I hope he has reconsidered!!! This from a republican.

The wall in East Germany was to keep the East in more than the West out.
Last I looked, we are trying to keep the South of the border OUT illegally.

Drudge has a link posted to a CBS piece in which a journalist engages in some rather thoughtful introspection. Rather shocking, but it’s definitely worth a read. The points raised are applicable to all members of the elite and how they view the unwashed masses.

(And I must add that I think Drudge and Zero Hedge both did an outstanding job covering this marathon election “season.”)

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 10, 2016 at 10:18 am

I will never forget not long after my wife and I moved from Missouri to New York, a waiter in a restaurant commented on our accent and wondered where we were from. After denying that I had an accent I told we were from Missouri. He then told us about how he once came close to Missouri when he went to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and how he loved the Gulf of Mexico.

For a second I didn’t know why he thought that was relevant. Then it hit me and I said, “No, Mississippi borders Louisiana. We are from Missouri. You must be confusing Mississippi and Missouri”. He said, “yeah, I know where California is and the big one is Texas, but the rest sort of blends together.”

That’s how many New Yorkers view the country.

If journalists really had command of the “facts,” they would see that we’re not racists, sexists, homophobes or any other of the numerous epithets with which we are labeled by the sanctimonious lame stream media (there’s a reason we call you that). We resent the situation that exists when 94+ million people who have left the work force because they can’t find decent jobs, there is an unsustainable debt that our grandchildren will have to pay, people have to take out second mortgages to pay for health insurance (not to be confused with actual health care), foreigners are purposely employed to take our jobs, the Middle East is disintegrating ever faster, Europe is in tatters, race relations are worse than any time since the 60s, and on and on and on. But I guess you all think we should be supremely happy because Target has transgender restrooms and higher education has special snowflakes.

I don’t understand why Scarborough and many others in the media are trying to save the reputation of Nate Copper.

Nate Bronze had Trump was wrong about Trump at every stage and had him at less than 5% chance to win even as early voting started. His job was to tell the public that the transparently biased ABC poll, which swung 15 points week to week was flawed, and he didn’t. Instead, even at the late date, Nate Tungsten weighted his formula to over rate the NBC/WSJ poll, conducted by a Clinton Superpac.

Even a week before election, when pollsters started to get serious and his model boosted Trump’s chances to 35%, Nate performed “adjustments,” to lower Trumps chances to 28%.

I think Nate Tinfoil even harmed the Clinton campaign with his bad/bogus polling analysis. Clinton spent a lot of time in Trump +5 North Carolina and Trump +9 Ohio, when a tiny fraction of that time spent rallying voters in Milwalkee and Detroit would have won her the election. Trump, by contrast, seemed to ignore polling that suggested he spend more time in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. All of those turned out to be Clinton strongholds.

ESPN should fire him.

    maxmillion in reply to rotten. | November 10, 2016 at 11:10 am

    538 is a libtard scam, and it’s sad to see even many conservatives get taken in.

    Evan3457 in reply to rotten. | November 10, 2016 at 11:17 am

    The reason why…
    1) Silver adjusted to 28% from 35% is that the media polls he uses as the basis for his analysis had the race moving slightly to Hillary in the last couple of days. ABC/Washington Post tracking poll moved from even to Hillary +4. There were others, including LA Times/USC Dornsife that moved from Trump +6 to Trump +3 in the last two days.

    2) Silver shouldn’t be hammered nearly as heavily he’s being hammered because a) other “analysts” on the left carried a far higher chance of Hillary winning. One of them, if I remember right, put it at over 98% on Election Day. Another attacked Silver in print for “putting his finger on the scale” in TRUMP’S favor, and Silver responded that the other pollster in question didn’t know what he was talking about and was full of it, and b) Two days before the election, while he was giving Hillary about a 70% chance to win it, he wrote a column explained that her lead in the Electoral College was precarious, and if Trump flipped just one more state to his side, he could win. He turned out to be a lot more right than the other “analysts” on the left, and a lot closer to what eventually happened that just about anyone in the leftist MSM. As for why he was wrong, easy: garbage in = garbage out.

    If one analyzes the popular vote polls, you’ll find that most of them were about as close as LA Times/USC. The eventual margin appears like it will be Clinton +1%, maybe higher. Only 8 million votes have been counted in California; there were over 12.5 million in 2012, and over 13 million in 2013. California always takes a long time to count its absentee ballots if the outcome is not in doubt. LA Times will have missed the popular vote percentage by over 5%, the IBD/TIPP head to head by over 3%, the same as the Leftist media polls, but on the other side. IBD/TIPP was right on the money in its 4-way poll, having Clinton up by 1 in its last iteration.

    They were wrong about the mood of the white middle class; they were wrong about the result. What happened was they missed about 3% of the vote. To be more precise, they all overestimated her support in the battleground states. They can claim MOE, but most of them missed nationally in the same direction at about the same amount, and that indicates bias/flawed methodology.

    However, though Trump’s win is final, and he has the constitutional mandate to govern, let’s not overstate things. Trump won by filling an inside straight, a succession of very tight wins some important battleground and lean blue states: Florida 1.3%, Pennsylvania 1.2%, Wisconsin 1.0%, Michigan 0.3%. Two of the four go the other way, and President Organized Crime Family, not President Trump. It’s not really a landslide if you lose the popular vote.

    Trump ran a brilliant campaign in the last several weeks, after the Billy Bush video. He recognized the voters he was going to win with right from the start of his campaign, and he never lost touch with them. He was lucky, in that the Clinton people did not really recognize where the threats were until too late, and futzed around trying to win Arizona and Georgia for too long. But Trump was disciplined, smart, and tough the last 3 weeks. He hired the best people in data analysis; they directed him to the right states. And he won.

    He won. Thank God Hillary wasn’t rewarded for her crimes with the Presidency.

      Evan3457 in reply to Evan3457. | November 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

      Too be fair, Hillary had a bunch of tight wins herself: NH, ME-2, MN, NV, all won by 2% or less. They add up to 21 electoral votes. Trump’s 4 (FL, PA, MI, WI) add up to 75 EV. Flip them all the other way on both sides, and Hillary wins with about 280 EV.

The worst part about the NYT‘s slant is its predictability. Why read the newspaper when you can predict it? It’s boring and pointless.

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.”
    – Sun Tzu

After the twilight a fresh perspective, the dawn of a new day.

That said, class diversitists are acutely phobic of diversity… and anyone who threatens to expose their Profits and schemes.

While I was waiting at the doctor’s office yesterday morning, they had Fox News yammering on in the waiting room, so I happened to catch Meghan McCain’s comment during a discussion of why the MSM got the election outcome 180 degrees so wrong. She said (and I’m paraphrasing here, because I’m just too slack this morning to look it up), “Look, how many of us know someone who makes less than $60,000 a year? How many of us know people who don’t live in Manhattan? If you don’t know anyone like that, then how can you honestly say that you know how the rest of the country feels? You can’t, because you don’t know what’s going on!” And that’s the best definition of “living in the bubble” I know of — good for her 😉

    Evan3457 in reply to Auntie Maim. | November 11, 2016 at 2:28 am

    That might be the most intelligent thing to ever come out of her mouth. A low bar to clear to be sure, but when an elephant flies, you don’t blame it for not staying up there too long.

For good laugh, somebody sent me a faux New York Times headline with a picture of the White House …

Trump Forces Black Family From Home

Calling these people “journalists” is a misappropriation of the term. They are trained in the art of propaganda and spin not in that of recording history.

I just noticed an article on Yahoo about demand for white pant suits surging. They showed a picture of Hillary in a white pant suit. Now, after watching Mrs. Trump in a white pant suit who do you think is setting the style?

Efing media is running 10 to 1 negative stories about Trump and he isn’t even in office yet.

Maureen Dowd (of all people) had a good column today on the Trump victory. One gem was this quote in re Trump:
“As Salena Zito had presciently written in The Atlantic: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

I think it was a gal name Kennedy said on Election night…

“The media has become a self licking lollipop”