Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism

Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism

Executive Editor Dean Baquet: “We built our newsroom to cover one story [Russia collusion], and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story [Trump’s racism].”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG9JWOOWf4E

In an astounding audio transcript leaked to Slate, NY Times executive editor Dean Baquet reveals what we all knew: The NY Times is out to get Trump. It’s deliberate, it’s planned, and it’s shifting after Russia collusion failed to portraying Trump as racist.

From the Slate article:

“What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden,” New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet told his staff in a town hall on Monday.

In the 75 minutes of the meeting—which Slate obtained a recording of, and of which a lightly condensed and edited transcript appears below—Baquet and the paper’s other leadership tried to resolve a tumultuous week for the paper….

Baquet, in his remarks, seemed to fault the complaining readers, and the world, for their failure to understand the Times and its duties in the era of Trump. “They sometimes want us to pretend that he was not elected president, but he was elected president,” Baquet said. “And our job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account. If you’re independent, that’s what you do.”

That the Times is hyper-sensitive to reader complaints explains why the Times became part of #TheResistance in pinning its hopes on Robert Mueller. But when Russia collusion fell apart after the Mueller Report was released, the Times has decided to focus on Trump being racist, Slate writes:

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being “a little tiny bit flat-footed” after the Mueller investigation ended. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,’” Baquet said. “And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago.”

By this account, the question of how to address presidential racism was a newly emerged one, something the paper would need to pivot into. “How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?” he said. “How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time?”

Here’s the key passage from the transcript (emphasis added):

Dean Baquet: If we’re really going to be a transparent newsroom that debates these issues among ourselves and not on Twitter, I figured I should talk to the whole newsroom, and hear from the whole newsroom. We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too. But there’s something larger at play here. This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s. It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. I’d love your help with that. As Audra Burch said when I talked to her this weekend, this one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred, but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years. In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. We’ll also ask reporters to write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions. I really want your help in navigating this story.

The Times has a vision of coverage moving forward, and it’s all about portraying Trump as racist. From the transcript (emphasis added):

Baquet: OK. I mean, let me go back a little bit for one second to just repeat what I said in my in my short preamble about coverage. Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?

I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.

This is a smoking gun. It shows the most powerful news organization in the country congratulating itself for setting the anti-Trump narrative on Russia collusion, and seamlessly transitioning to setting a narrative of Trump as racist after collusion flopped.

There is a collusion case to be made, but it’s not about Trump and Russia. It’s about powerful news organizations throwing their weight behind Democrats.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Boatload of false premises in there. Just shows how clueless and venal Baquet is.

“OK, team. Let’s get wishporting!”

    This was not a “leaked tape” It was a town hall meeting and nothing in this is a secret.

      Excerpt from the town hall meeting: This paragraph is about why they’re not using the word racist. It does not reflect your conclusion that they did that because the Russian investigation didn’t work as the Russian Investigation has been revealed to be True. “The weekend when some news organizations used the word racist, and I chose not to, we ran what I think is the most powerful story anybody ran that weekend. [inaudible] [chief White House correspondent] Peter Baker, who stepped back and took Trump’s remarks, looked at his whole history of using remarks like that, and I think it was more powerful than any one word. My own view? You quote the remarks. I’m not saying we would never use the word racist. I’m talking about that weekend. You quote the remarks. The most powerful journalism I have ever read, and that I’ve ever witnessed, was when writers actually just described what they heard and put them in some perspective. I just think that’s more powerful.”

      Edward in reply to ldar. | August 19, 2019 at 8:42 am

      A town hall meeting where Baquet spoke as if he were addressing NYT employees of the newsroom? I must have missed something there. Or was this a “town hall” meeting only of NYT newsroom employees (odd that, to call a town hall meeting and inviting only employees, and only some of the employees).

Ladies and Gentlemen, the odor you smell drifting across the continent is the decomposition of the Old Gray Lady. But unfortunately (like those who think Elvis is living in a trailer park somewhere) the leftist and Democrats won’t bury the corpse.

Journalism is not dead. It’s mantle has been picked up by sites such as Legal Insurrection and others like it.

To the contributors for this site please never rest on your laurels. The nation needs a voice of reason.

    walls in reply to Shadow5. | August 17, 2019 at 9:17 am

    That would be Old Gray Whore. The only people seeking the old gray whore are those with little coin in pocket, or low self esteem.

I would imagine that when Pravda or Goebbels set the daily line the meetings went something like this one.

    tom_swift in reply to fscarn. | August 17, 2019 at 12:14 am

    I’d vote for Himmler.

    There’s reason to believe that Heinrich never grasped that he was the villain. He even lamented that it was difficult be in his line of work and still stay the good guy. Much like Baquest—

    It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred.

    He seems genuinely oblivious to the obvious fact that he and his fellow-travelers are the ones peddling the mind-corroding hatred.

Paul In Sweden | August 16, 2019 at 10:22 pm

‘We would do, I don’t know, dozens of stories about Trump every single day and every single one of them was negative.’ Abramson said, ‘We have become the anti-Trump paper of record.’ Well, that’s not our job. That’s a political position. That means we’ve become political activists in a sense. And some could argue, propagandists, right? And there’s some merit to that. We have a few conventions—because they are not really rules—but you need at least two firsthand sources for something, right? Those things help keep your work to a certain standard. Those standards are out the window. I mean, you read one story or another and hear it and it’s all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. That’s not journalism. . . .”

The former executive editor of the New York Times
–Jill Abramson

The NY Slimes is not a news organization. It is dedicated to promoting communism through the democrat party. They will lie, as they did for 3 years about russia, about anything.

The Russia lie has failed. They will now switch to another set of lies. It’s what they do.

What do you expect from the failing NYT? If they will change a headline to satisfy the angry mob, pivoting from Russian collusion to calling Trump a racist is not much of a leap. If you are still relying on a MSM outlet to stay informed, the joke is on you. It pains me to say this, but even Drudge has become unreliable due to his constant dissemination of fake news from MSM outlets.

So why isn’t Slate trying to smother this story?

    puhiawa in reply to tom_swift. | August 17, 2019 at 1:35 am

    Soros has replaced Slate as a primary distributor of left wing talking points run by Brock (Media Matters) at Share Blue. Media Matters was in danger of losing its IRS exemption because it was found feeding DNC propaganda points daily to the MSM. So Soros funded ShareBlue. (and gave Brock another $100K/year)

Race-ian collusion then?

The NYT knew the Russian collusion lie was a hoax because James Wolfe leaked the full Carter FISA application to the NYT biitch who paid for leaks with sex: Ali Watkins.

legacyrepublican | August 17, 2019 at 12:28 am

I would tweet something like this if I were POTUS —

“It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred …” Consider using a mirror during your investigation Mr. Baquet because racism is just one form of irrational hatred of someone.

tommy mc donnell | August 17, 2019 at 12:37 am

if a FREE and INDEPENDENT press is the cornerstone of freedom what is a politically biased press. it would have to be the cornerstone of tyranny. you want to know why black people hate white people its because the democrat party-media complex teaches black people to hate white people everyday.

Sounds like he sent the 5 famous reporters with the 14 anonymous sources from the DOJ/FBI and Senate Intelligence Committee cabal out to manufacture more dirt on Trump….but maybe I am wrong…/

Hey! Psst, guys. Mayday! Mayday! We’re going to Plan B, OK? Not Plan A anymore. If anyone asks about Plan A, tell them it was always Plan B.from the very start. Make sure you read up on and memorize these talking points, so we can keep our stories straight. Stay posted for further developments. Democracy dies in darkness.“

They won two Pulitzer prizes for lying to the American people for two and half years, and they congratulate themselves for a job well done. We all know their “reporting” was shyte. So what are they slapping each other on the back for? For fueling anti-Trump sentiment and keeping his opponents’ base riled up. Because that’s all they accomplished. Has nothing to do with “journalism.”

    The Packetman in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 17, 2019 at 7:41 am

    “They won two Pulitzer prizes for lying to the American people for two and half years”

    You say that like a Pulitzer still means anything!

      tommy mc donnell in reply to The Packetman. | August 17, 2019 at 11:20 am

      you think maybe the Pulitzer prize might be given out for political reasons? that’s the way it works in a communist country.

There are three types of bias:
a) Unconscious bias – I am not aware of it. We all have them
b) Conscious bias that I know is wrong – I apply it carefully and try to hide it (e.g, a young hiring manager refusing to hire an older worker because of her age)
c) Conscious bias that I believe is correct – the KKK is an example.

The NYT is an example of conscious bias of type “c” to fellow believers but they do not publicize it to he world because inside they know it is wrong (type “b”). I consider this moral failure to be a serious mental deficiency. Even the KKK members wore disguises. Why? Why is this NYT agenda on the front page of the NYT? They know they are engaging in evil and want assurances from each other that they are really in the right when inside they know they are not. These people and their supporters are sick.

By any means necessary.

    TX-rifraph in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 17, 2019 at 9:26 am

    “Why is this NYT agenda on the front page..”

    Correction of typo – agenda NOT on the front page

    The typing hand is even slower than the brain directing it…

Let’s see who defends the NYT evil. You will see “By any means necessary” on display.

I can’t simply copy it here (why?), but look at the NYT “T” logo. It looks like Trump.

Diversity breeds adversity, and, apparently, progresses favorable analytics for media and social platforms.

Baquet never graduated from college.

They won Pulitzer Prizes for their previous coverage of Russia, under Stalin.

2smartforlibs | August 17, 2019 at 9:56 am

from the paper of record to the paper of rant. The news comes as it happens there is not agenda

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 17, 2019 at 12:30 pm

He deserves credit for admitting that he is delivering what NYT readers want. As Jill Abramson observed, it is more akin to party (Democrat) propaganda than news.

IMO, the Washington Post is about 10x worse than the NYT. I did not have that perception in the Obama years. In the Obama years, I felt the NYT was more biased than WaPo. But with Trump, WaPo’s coverage strikes me as orders of magnitudes more anti-Trump than the NYT.

I imagine the reason for that may have something to do with the fact that Trump got only 4% of the vote in Washington. Like Baquet at the NYT, Marty Baron (WaPo’s top dog), knows that his audience is filled with anti-Trump haters. Both are giving their audience what they want – anti-Trump coverage to get more subscriptions and clicks so they can demand advertisers pay higher ad rates. And the cherry on top would be swinging the election.

Doesn’t NewsGuard give the NYT the same ranking as LI?

So why do you celebrate it?

Either their hypersensitivity didn’t extend to that cartoon, or algorithmically the Orange Man Bad! meme overrode the Netanyahu/Israel is dog theme.

The Times has their timeline wrong, the severe divide in this country started with the 2000 election and hasn’t healed except for a short period just after 9/11/2001.

This is the signal that the team was to start fabricating race stories. No doubt the edited parts contain instructions on how the BlueShare talking points are to be utilized. BlueShare is the media matters spinoff for left wing talking points. It goes out daily as many times as needed to the entire MSM and select members of congress.

The groups, previously identified as the Main Stream Media, need to be reclassified to being PAC’s. Their contributions in time and dribble should be valued in money terms and limited as any other PAC is.

The Emperor Mueller had no clothes, and now we know the same of the NYT.

If you read about the first 2/3 of the transcript, it’s clear that the whole newsroom thinks everything is about race. It’s not just their coverage, but their opinion. And this is good to know, because opinion is not supposed to be presented as news.

Now, whenever they do one of those vague, moralistic race stories, it can be rebutted by saying they see a racial issue in everything. Because one of their reporters in the meeting actually said he or she does.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend