The New York times pledges to “reflect” on its election coverage and “redidicate” itself to reporting honest news to America…that is until their advertisers force them to spin out more propaganda.
Didn’t the NTY sell the Iraq invasion and WMDs?
Didn’t the NYT sell the Libya invasion?
Didn’t the NYT sell the Ukraine Maidan coup and support it fascist neo-nazi roots?
Am I mistaken, or is the NYT still trying to sell us on the “moderate rebel” fiction in Syria?
Now after Trump’s US election victory the NYT has decided to finally report the news fairly and accurately.
Arthur Sulzberger, the owner and publisher of the NYT, promised that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election, as it “rededicates” itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.
To be sure, that would be a vast change from the NYT’s existing coverage of events, even though despite the tacit admission of its failure to account for Trump’s “stunning” victory, in the same letter Sulzberger also writes that “we believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”
No, you did not: you were too worried about losing your advertisers who would complain loudly, and threaten to pull their revenue, if they saw even implicit criticism of Hillary Clinton, which meant non stop explicit criticism of Trump. So why bring it up? Because speaking of the all important top-line, the NYT – already suffering from a collapse in ad revenue – which plunged 18.5% in Q3, desperately needs subscribers to keep paying for its disinformation or else the very future of the NYT is in danger.
The full Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. letter sent on November 11 to readers is below:
To our readers,
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?
As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim 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 the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
And just in case someone had a short memory, here is the propaganda peddled by the “paper of record.”
— The New York Times (@nytimes) November 3, 2016