Randy DeSoto for Western Journalism reports, “The public editor for the New York Times admitted in a piece over the weekend that the “paper of record” received an influx complaints at five times the normal level, with the main issue being its perceived slanted coverage of the presidential race.”
The grievances were not only centered on the Times’s coverage of Donald Trump, but additionally that it preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders for the duration of the Democratic primary.
The Times public editor Liz Spayd publishes, “Since the election, I have been on the phone with many Times readers around the country…to discuss their concerns about The Times’s coverage of the presidential election. The number of complaints coming into the public editor’s office is five times the normal level, and the pace has only just recently tapered off.”
The callers frequently attributed thoughts along the lines that “They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim,” despite how the paper would try to portray them or their candidate.
“My colleague Thomas Feyer, who oversees the letters to the editor, says the influx from readers is one of the largest since Sept. 11,” she contributes.
Spayd contends that all the bad feedback should pressure the Gray Lady to take a “hard-eyed look” at its coverage.
Her bosses, executive editor Dean Baquet and publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., concur.
Spayd records they procured the “extraordinary” move of composing a post-election mea culpa letter of types in which they acknowledge to missing Donald Trump’s appeal and support among a huge percentage of the American electorate.
The paper’s leaders promised 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 spite of all the grievances, the Times documented observing a net increase of 41,000 paid subscriptions to its news products, both print and digital, in the seven days subsequent the election, which is “the largest one-week subscription increase since the first week of the digital pay model in 2011.”
As documented by Western Journalism, the public editor for ESPN also thinks his network must do some soul searching with regards to its liberal prejudice.
Jim Brady realizes in his piece that the country is more-less equally divided between Republican and Democrat, and his company should value that fact internally and with its viewing customers.
“So let’s take the next step and assume that ESPN has moved leftward and that the cat is out of the bag in terms of on-air discussion of politics. Because I believe both of those things to be true. How does one guarantee ideological diversity in that scenario? I think that’s the key question for ESPN going forward in these intense political times,” the editor published.
“If ESPN continues to let its personalities debate the issues of the day but finds a way to better balance those conversations, it will be richer for it. In more ways than one,” he deduced.
BIN NOTE: Most people who use social media have figured out that Facebook and Google are in cahoots with the government, for those who are well aware of the issues it’s high time you switched over to Seen.life. It is a website that is similar to Facebook but without all the censorship.
These People Are A Danger To Themselves And Others! Wake Up!!!!!!
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this article or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter.