Most of us learn at an early age that actions have consequences — good actions, good consequences; bad actions, bad consequences. For the publisher of the New York Times, he happened to be “absent” for that little lesson in life. On Friday, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. penned a letter to Times readers appealing for continued support as he promised the paper would “‘reflect’ on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on ‘America and the world’ honestly.”
The letter stated, “We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers.”
The New York Times deserves to lose readership and subscriptions for the decision by the powers that be to become lapdogs of the Democrat/Clinton campaign propaganda machine. It should have been reporting honestly all along. As it stands, the paper upper level management chose to violate the public trust in order to “pimp” for Clinton and attempt to “stump” Trump.
Fox News reported:
New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, “because it [The Times] 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.”
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.
Spayd wrote, “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.”
Another suggested that Times “come down from your New York skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Yet, Sulzberger still claimed the paper “covered both candidates fairly.” Seriously? After the NYT’s own public editor chastised the paper for its election coverage and a former Times reporter called out the paper for not having a clue to the happenings in the lives of Americans? If that wasn’t bad enough, a former Times reporter called out the paper for branding Trump supporters as “a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes,….” Sulzberger is the epitome of a liberal dimwit who thinks his stuff don’t stink, he’s always right, and practices willful ignorance when confronted with the facts.
Sulzberger did instruct employees at the Times to impartially report the news without having any fear or favor. He then claimed the reporting on the Trump administration would be done without bias. Does anyone believe that after such an egregious violation of the public trust and ethics? No one should because if the political wheel calls for a little media greasing, the media will hop to in short order just as it did this time. The reason is the control of all media outlets by only six corporations who support liberal, progressive, leftist, Democrat, communist, socialist and Marxist policies.
Naturally, the public should expect the Times to continue its engagement of “trashing” Trump and his supporters while coddling left, liberal progressive, communist, socialist, and Marxist Democrats. For the unfounded labeling of a sect of the population, the Times should suffer the consequences of poor judgement on the part of Sulzberger. No sympathy should be given as that is more than likely what Sulzberger is trying to garner.
As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” This man deliberately steered the paper employees to violate the public trust. Once the violation has occurred, any individual who believes whatever appears in this paper runs the risk of being fooled again. This paper deserves to go the way of the Dodo bird.
The New York Times is not the only news media or media organization to engage in violation of the people’s trust and throwing journalistic ethics out of the window. Most of the news media portrayed Clinton and Trump just as Liz Spayd noted — Clinton was portrayed as functional and organized while Trump was portrayed as discombobulated, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynistic. During the campaign, media news outlets were busy shaping the thinking of the American public through “slight of hand” and “smoke and mirrors” reports and polls. It was a most egregious violation of the public trust and journalistic ethics. Sharyl Attkisson dubbed the game the media played as “astroturfing.”
It is only fitting the news media suffer the consequences for their conscious decision to deceive the public, use the public to influence election outcomes, and expect to suffer no consequences.