Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY Times: Sorry not sorry for biased reporting

NY Times: Sorry not sorry for biased reporting

Not exactly a mea culpa.

Apparently the NY Times is reeling from its abysmal, over-the-top, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trump “news” coverage.

Mark Halperin of Bloomberg News and Joe Scarborough noted the bias regarding election results coverage:

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.

Michael Goodwin at The NY Post reports on how the Times is reacting:

The Gray Lady feels the agony of political defeat — in her reputation and in her wallet.

After taking a beating almost as brutal as Hillary Clinton’s, the New York Times on Friday made an extraordinary appeal to its readers to stand by her. The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better….

Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.

I’ve gotten letters from people who say they cancelled their Times subscriptions and, to judge from a cryptic line in a Thursday article, the problem is more than anecdotal.

Citing reader anger over election coverage, [NY Times reporter Jim Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”

So the publisher and executive editor issued a statement which probably is as close as the Times can come to an apology:

To our readers,

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor

In an internal staff memo, the Times also promised to be fair to President Trump:

Dear Colleagues,

As we close one of the most momentous weeks in our nation’s recent history, let’s pause for a moment on those famous instructions that Adolph S. Ochs left for us: to cover the news without fear or favor.

As Donald Trump begins preparing for his new administration, those words have rarely felt more important.

The Times is certainly not afraid — our investigative report has demonstrated our courage many times over. That fearless, hard-fought journalism will always stand as the backbone of The Times, no matter the President.

But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias. We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly. We will bring expert analysis and thoughtful commentary to the changes we see in government, and to their ramifications on the ground.

We will look within and beyond Washington to explore the roots of the anger that has roiled red and blue America. If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let’s make it our job to interpret and explain.

Our predecessors founded our singular newspaper for just this moment — to serve as a watchdog to the powerful; and to hold mighty institutions accountable, without fear or favor. We are more than ready to fulfill that promise.

Together, we have built the world’s best digital newsroom and it, too, was made for just this moment. We will chronicle the new administration with a lightning-fast report that features stories told in every medium and on every platform.

Here is what we have all dedicated our careers to: Going after the biggest stories in the world, and telling them as ambitiously as possible.

Get some rest this weekend. We have lots to do.

Arthur

How would I assess all of that?

Sorry not sorry.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They don’t comprehend how much they are hated. They are the Winston Smiths working at MiniTru, covering stories with a pillow. It says alot that the major scandals this year were broken, not by the MSM, but by leaks, hacks and FOIA requests.

The only reason they aren’t hanging from lamp posts is because that would be illegal.

What I don’t get is why any of these liars still have jobs. Not only did they completely misread the electorate, they cheated Sanders out of their side’s nomination and they lied to their own people with all these false narratives, effectively blinding them.

If I ran CNN or WaPo or NYTs, I would be replacing the entire staff.

    Old0311 in reply to Fen. | November 12, 2016 at 7:23 pm

    Once you give up self respect the rest is easy.

    n.n in reply to Fen. | November 12, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    They don’t pose an existential threat to America, People, and Posterity. That may change with a progressive condition; but, for now, following the twilight, a fresh perspective, and the dawn of a new day, with plans for revitalization, rehabilitation, and reconciliation on Americans’ minds.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Fen. | November 12, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    “My God, he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater!”

    —Reporter listening to Goldwater’s 1964 GOP acceptance speech

    “My God, they’re going to keep running as the NY Times!”

    —The public listening to the NYT’s disingenuous mea culpa

The NYT … following in Dan Rather’s trailblazing footsteps.

Over at Reddit, when the kiddies post an article from the New York Times, they sometimes save an archive copy of it, first. This is done to deliberately deprive the NYT of clicks.

“If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let’s make it our job to interpret and explain”

This one statement in context of both letter to subscribers and Internal Memo to staff says:

Business as Usual; Full Steam Ahead

We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.

Yeah, okay, I think I’m beginning to see their problem.

You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

Yep, that’s it. They’re delusional. Batsh!t crazy and delusional!

DieJustAsHappy | November 12, 2016 at 7:22 pm

What, no disparaging labels for these malcontents who cannot accept a duly elected President?! They sure had and used them for those who opposed Obama.

“How the hell did you expect us to cover this??!? The wrong candidate won! That’s news!”

There is no “reality of Trump presidency” yet. It is coming, though. The worst is yet to be.

“…rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly…”

This is funny. Rededicate? When was dedicate? They can’t even be honest about their dishonesty. They need to close the doors so they stop making CO2. Or is it odoriferous methane they make?

Dear NYT: Oxford commas, please!

Congenital liar NY Times: “We won’t lie anymore!”

Oh, please.

DieJustAsHappy | November 12, 2016 at 8:31 pm

As long as these demonstrations continue and the MSM willingly participates in giving them front-page coverage plus the coverage of the President-Elect’s transition, Obama just might be shorted some legacy coverage.

Now isn’t that a pity!

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known…”
They can’t even write an “apology” without lying outrageously.

I wonder how many people actually trust the NYT. Certainly less than half the country.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to great unknown. | November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Part of the problem of biased reporting, and the NYT in particular, is that only a small percentage of news consumers sign up and pay for its newspaper delivery or for access to its online version, set behind a pay wall. Most see NYT propaganda through its articles being linked on blogs and websites all over the internet, wherein a high percentage probably doesn’t realize they’re reading a NYTs article. Those of us who’ve become sensitive to media bias have learned to check, but the great bulk of voters pay little attention.

    I’d love to see a boycott where blogs and news sites refuse to repost or link to clearly biased outfits like the online versions of the NYT, WAPO, LAT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Once things settle a bit, I hope Trump carries out his threat to sue the NYT for their story. After all the story was about three incidents and the day it came out the woman involved in one of the stories was already calling it lies and that she did not say what they said she did.

I wonder if Trump can get them to cough up some of his campaign expenses as part of his judgement. Could we be looking at another gawker?

Come now we all know “we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism” really means the NYT will once again find and have issues with Executive orders, a homeless problem the President is wholly responsible for, that the real unemployment rate is much higher than reported, Problems at the VA are the Presidents fault yes Mr. Trump will be personally responsible for each and every death, all scandals at an y agency will now lead directly to the White House – even if the president “only just now read about it the papers”.

There will be accountability by god! or were not the NYT!!

“What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?”

The NYT, among others.

Watching the lights finally go on for Chris Matthews reminded me of when my kids would finally ‘get’ algebra.

DINORightMarie | November 13, 2016 at 2:58 am

…we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign…..

It that for real?! It reads like The Onion!! And he actually doesn’t understand that THIS is why they are bleeding red ink?!?!

Delusional. Profoundly un-aware of reality.

Fifth Column, not Fourth Estate.

” If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let’s make it our job to interpret and explain.”????? Really? How about just be unbiased on your reporting. It is not your job to interpret and explain. Your interpretation might be different than mine.

In the immortal words of William Randolph Hearst, “Just get me the pictures. I’ll give you the war….”

According to Fox News (link below), the publisher of the NYT claims to be rededicating the paper to honest reporting.

Uh huh. That assumes that there is anyone at the NYT that is capable of honest reporting. Given that the NYT has been a Democrat Party shill for years, if not decades…

Another problem is that the publisher suffers from a total lack of self-awareness, as this quote shows: “‘We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,’ the letter states.”

“Independent, original journalism”? Since when? Not in my lifetime, and I’m sixty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/new-york-times-publisher-vows-to-rededicate-itself-to-reporting-honestly.html

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend