Image 01 Image 03

New York Times Public Editor: Paper Has Received Five Times Normal Level of Complaints

New York Times Public Editor: Paper Has Received Five Times Normal Level of Complaints


The New York Times public editor Liz Spayd’s op-ed contains a lot of harsh truths and realities for those who write for one of the world’s most famous newspapers: drop the bias. Her office has received “five times the normal level” of complaints “and the pace has only just recently tapered off.”

Spayd does not flat out say that, but she portrays it in her eloquent article:

But I hope any chest thumping about the impressive subscriber bump won’t obscure a hard-eyed look at coverage. Because from my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.

Spayd has spent a lot of time on the phone with subscribers around the country, hearing their complaints of the obvious bias towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and President-elect Donald Trump.

Cindy Capwell wrote to Spayd that The Times coverage tainted Trump supporters as racists, sexists, and homophobes by concentrating “on Trump’s most extreme supporters.”

It really is no wonder why polls had Hillary winning. The Times and other media outlets that should remain non-biased often portrayed all Trump supporters this way so many of them never spoke up about their support of Trump.

The best part? Liberals have complained to Spayd about the coverage:

Few could deny that if Trump’s more moderate supporters are feeling bruised right now, the blame lies partly with their candidate and his penchant for inflammatory rhetoric. But the media is at fault too, for turning his remarks into a grim caricature that it applied to those who backed him. What struck me is how many liberal voters I spoke with felt so, too. They were Clinton backers, but, they want a news source that fairly covers people across the spectrum.

WHAT struck me most as I spoke with readers is how much, to a person, they had something to say that was smart and reasonable. They weren’t randomly selected — I chose them from an inbox of complaints — but they had reactions that were well worth hearing. I found myself wishing someone from the newsroom was on the line with me, especially to hear how many of the more liberal voters wanted more balanced coverage. Not an echo chamber of liberal intellectualism, but an honest reflection of reality.

Reader Judy Barlas, a Sanders supporter, told Spayd that she noticed during the primary The Times would push for Hillary. The coverage would take a Sanders victory and managed to twist “it in terms of what it meant for Clinton.”

Look at The Times the day after.


Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough ripped apart The Times:

MARK HALPERIN: Look at the headline of this story. [Featured Image] 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.
But will other outlets follow Spayd’s footsteps? Like I said, other outlets have committed the same crimes and they are still doing it.

But as I said before, other outlets have committed the same crimes. CBS News reporter Will Rahn wrote an op-ed similar to Spayd’s, but about the press in general:

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

The Los Angeles Times took advantage of the rage against fake news sites by slipping in REAL AND RELIABLE conservative news sites in its list of fake sites. The paper included Independent Journal Review, RedState, and Breitbart.


There is hope, though. The Media Research Center and YouGov took a poll about media bias and found that most people recognized the bias, but rejected it:

7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.

8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).

Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”

8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.

97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.

Just drop the bias if the site is supposed to be mainstream and non-bias.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I could not believe that the Times chose that headline for the Trump victory. What a pathetic display of sour grapes on the part of people who are supposed to report facts. Instead they joined the pity parties and promoted acceptance for mass depression. Gee, are there any adults on the left? They have been smug winners and unhinged losers. This is what happens when competition is replaced with participation trophies. The country has 19 tril in debt, 2 parties that have placed their own interests above the voting public and an economy ripe for implosion and all the libs care about is getting a corrupt, terminally ill woman elected so that they can have another historic moment in their lives.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 21, 2016 at 6:03 pm

All the News That’s Fit to Fake:

The bias is existential. At least move it between the lines. The overt prejudice is simply obnoxious.

I sent an email to Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron today, saying I had cancelled my subscription because of his paper’s virulently anti- Trump bias. He wrote back that his paper was not anti-Trump and then he thanked me for exercising my right to vote. Condescending and close-minded.

legalizehazing | November 21, 2016 at 7:46 pm

I’m just going to leave my appropriate forum comment here..

Noteworthy entertainment, at least to me. A story about normal people reaching out and touching the NYT ivory tower – and dumping salt on them.

The infamous Reddit sub The_Donald sent 2000+ lbs of salt to the NYT separately in 25lb bags… gift wrapped with short letters to the editors:) After a hard fought campaign for Hillary the media earned their salty salty tears. Article after article smears any place associated with the “Alt right” as racist and bigoted etc. Recently the NYT in an article accused The_Donald of housing bigotry. The folks at The_Donald responded in kind.

In a playful rebuttal Reditors took it upon themselves to send 25lb bags of Morton’s salt to the NYT editors. Like much of the beautiful ambiguity that makes up the Trump supporters the symbolism is multifaceted. It’s a clear reference to the NYT’s salty tears. The knock at the tears is both a reminder of their ridiculous partisanship and terrible sportsmanship after a Loss. They impugn average Americans and treat them as bigots of every type without a second thought, let alone basic decency. Those horrible bigots sent salt. An ancient valuable harvested by middle class people all across the middle of the country. It serves as a nice reminder that the anonymous worthless stupid bigoted masses of the middle country can reach out and respond. Like they did on November 7th. Gosh PA is awfully close to home.

Maybe the salt is also a reference to a razed Carthage.

NYT piece:

The_Donald Response:

They want us to take them back.

They promise not to hit us again.

Just like they did the last 3 times.

Burn them to the ground. Salt the earth. Then take off and nuke the site from orbit just to be sure.

3 more police officers were assassinated over the weekend, agitated by the lies promoted by these people to promote racial strife.

For my part, I’m letting ISIS know the staff at the NYTs, CNN and WaPo use the Koran as toilet paper. Good. Goose. Gander.

The New York Times remains as unhinged as ever, despite its letter to subscribers promising to do better:

The New York Times, other outlets crying ‘wolf’ over Trump
BY JOE CONCHA – 11/21/16 12:11 PM EST

I have begun writing to my regional paper, asking them to use other sources for their national news. All they use are the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press.

I am amazed that they have readers capable of critical thinking still, those are the complainers, the rest are sheeple.

When they tabulated the number of complaints, did they add in the number of subscription cancellations?

The NY Times should be the newspaper the democrat media uses whenever they wipe Obama’s bottom when they change his democrat media diaper.

The NY Times has never been for the mainstream of America.
No doubt in my mind that many of the complaints were orchestrated by the big bully himself.

Trump has called out the NYT and they lost!
Their credibility and fairness has been lost forever!
They are a partisan and biased company who with out a doubt favors the progressive programs.
It’s going to be fun to watch Trump twist them during his presidency.