In a strange sort of admission of bias, the New York Times, through its publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., penned a letter to readers in which he vowed the newspaper, post-Donald Trump election, would “rededicate” itself to proper and nonpartisan journalism.
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.
Can you say Falling Revenues?
How else to describe this seeming sudden turn toward nonbiased reporting – after years and years of pro-Democrat, liberal-leaning, anti-conservative reports, sourcing and placement of pieces?
Apparently, Trump’s win didn’t just send shockwaves through the political world. It’s apparently also shaking some deep-rooted beliefs in the media and reminding the elitists in journalism: conservative viewpoints do indeed count.
Well, how refreshing. But let’s not forget in all this cheering about a newspaper realizing its core duty was to report the truth, regardless of where that truth leads: the a-ha moment the New York Times is currently experiencing is a simultaneous recognition of its own inherent and long-standing biases.
As New York Post columnist and former New York Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote:
“[B]ecause it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.”
The so-called journalists of the New York Times live in the same bubble occupied by the elitists upon whom they report – the left-leaning, government employed, and the progressive-socialist minded who’ve never met a taxpayer subsidy they didn’t like.
From Fox News:
“Sulzberger’s letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
“She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump campaign discombobulated.”
In a tweet, Spayed wrote: “The NYT would do well to plant some roots in Red America.”
That’s an understatement.
Let’s not forget this is the newspaper that ran a column on its opinion pages that called Trump a “domestic terrorist” at the height of campaign season.
Spayd went on, Fox News reported:
“Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: ‘Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.’
“She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of ‘pushing the limited agenda of your editors.’
“‘Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.’”
Ouch. Truth hurts.
Here’s the Sulzberger letter, in its entirety:
You think the New York Times will now become an example of solid and fair journalism – a shining beacon of the watchdog power of the press? Don’t hold breath.
The post New York Times Vows to ‘Rededicate’ Self to Honest Reporting appeared first on The Geller Report.