Image 01 Image 03

New York Times Reportedly Doesn’t Want Its (Partisan) Reporters on Partisan Cable Shows

New York Times Reportedly Doesn’t Want Its (Partisan) Reporters on Partisan Cable Shows

Saving face?

Vanity Fair reported that The New York Times, often criticized for leftist leanings, told its newsroom that reporters cannot appear on partisan news shows.

The news came out after the newspaper made finance editor David Enrich cancel an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC.

From Vanity Fair:

The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow. The producer, who was informed that the Times asks members of the newsroom not to appear on opinionated shows to discuss political subjects, was miffed about the cancellation, sources said. Enrich declined to comment.

The ban reaches farther than MSNBC:

The Times has come to “prefer,” as sources put it, that its reporters steer clear of any cable-news shows that the masthead perceives as too partisan, and managers have lately been advising people not to go on what they see as highly opinionated programs. It’s not clear how many shows fall under that umbrella in the eyes of Times brass, but two others that definitely do are Lawrence O’Donnell’s and Don Lemon’s, according to people familiar with management’s thinking. Hannity’s or Tucker Carlson’s shows would likewise make the cut, but it’s not like Times reporters ever do those anyway. I’m told that over the past couple of months, executive editor Dean Baquet has felt that opinionated cable-news show are getting, well, even more opinionated. Baquet and other managers have become increasingly concerned that if a Times reporter were to go on one of these shows, his or her appearance could be perceived as being aligned with that show’s political leanings. “He thinks it’s a real issue,” one of my Times sources said. “Their view,” said another, “is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias.”

However, this is not a new policy. The Ethical Journalism handbook from the Times states: “In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.”

Vanity Fair asked The Washington Post for its stance on partisan cable shows. A spokeswoman said the newspaper views “all broadcast programs as opportunities to expose our journalism to different audiences” while urging the “reporters to speak objectively about the news topics they cover or share fact-based analysis with the goal of giving viewers a better understanding of a story.”

Critics laughed at the idea of the Times wanting to stray away from partisan shows due to the fact that many view the newspaper as leftist. From Fox News:

Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor mocked the situation, essentially labeling the Times as hypocrites in the process.

“This isn’t a news story, it’s a sitcom plot. The nation’s most liberal paper is suddenly concerned that the wacky network filled on air with its employees might be too far left,” Gainor told Fox News. “The Times is liberal on the opinion and news pages on every major issue facing the nation — from abortion to taxes. Yet, MSNBC is even further left? Does anyone at The Times read their own paper?”

Conservative strategist Chris Barron echoed Gainor’s reaction to the Vanity Fair story.

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this story,” Barron told Fox news. “Has anyone from the New York Times actually read the New York Times? If they want to avoid the appearance of overt partisanship they might try taking a look in the mirror first.”

Personally, I do not believe The New York Times is the biggest offender when it comes to partisanship, mainly due to its international coverage. I find that as the Times one saving grace. I also do not deny the fact that I regularly read the Times because, well, it is the Times.

You will find in my posts that I do not regularly quote the Times because I notice a spin in its reports. We know its anti-President Donald Trump, and I often find spin in the articles to make us believe Trump is trying to hurt the country.

It does not help that the Times often provided glowing coverage during President Barack Obama’s administration and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. You have to give the Times credit for breaking the news about Hillary’s private server and mishandling of classified information. Then again, that is huge news, and it tied their hands.

I covered Operation Fast and Furious extensively for Breitbart News, mainly for Big Journalism because I noticed that the mainstream media brushed aside one of the biggest scandals in a president’s administration. The New York Times barely covered the testimonies given by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, hiding it on page 21. I politely asked reporter Charlie Savage about his coverage of Holder, and the man berated me and blocked me on Twitter. I did not even really criticize him. I just wanted to know why he provided only vanilla details in little blurbs about Holder’s testimony.

Holder received front-page coverage one time…to brag about his accomplishments and call us, like Katie Pavlich, Matt Boyle, the stellar Sharyl Attkisson, and me, racists for concentrating so hard to find the truth of Fast and Furious, which led to the death of Special Agent Brian Terry.

In fact, The New York Times wrote about Terry after Holder resigned after Obama’s first term. With Holder out of the way, the newspaper had no problem marking the anniversary of Holder.

Anyway, maybe the Times realized it needs to save face after the lashing it received after Trump’s victory over Hillary in November 2016. A few reminders:

With this announcement, I will read more articles from The New York Times and see if this revolution applies to its reporting as well.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 31, 2019 at 3:13 pm


Pull all the press credentials of the NYT.

She’s a dishoneset, under-educated hysteric.

Colonel Travis | May 31, 2019 at 4:09 pm

I do not read the NYT unless some poor slob I trust has read it and wants to illustrate a point by using a NYT story.

They still pretend they don’t have an agenda. They’re coward liars. If they admitted who they were, I’d actually respect them.

I’d love to see the Times’ latest revenue figures…

Or, it could be that their audiences are on the way to being reduced to their own extended families.

DINORightMarie | June 1, 2019 at 1:15 am

I chalk it up to the fact that they see the writing on the wall……

MSNBC and CNN are cratering, because their bias is so blatant, and their broadcasts are undeniably opinion dressed up as “news” and “professional journalism”

The NYT has been around for a while (over a century) and they want to continue to be the “paper of record” even when their revenue and subscriptions are drying up….mostly, I am guessing because of hubris.

It’s too late. You can’t un-ring the bell, you can’t un-write your agitprop. People don’t believe you anymore. our echo chamber is all you have–because you sold your soul to the Marxist-Dems long ago. Self-immolation is not a pretty sight.

The NYT may survive, but their credibility is gone. Like the WaPo, you just could not help yourselves. Ideology uber alles.

regulus arcturus | June 1, 2019 at 1:52 am

Multiple fallacies –

“The Times was wary of how viewers…”

The MSM should be classified as PAC’s instead of news organizations. The cost of the articles they publish should be campaign contributions and not “news”.