The rot of bias at the NY Times:
Michael Goodwin:
This all stems from a decision by the Times and by the Washington Post that they did not have to be fair to Trump during the campaign and they have extended it to his presidency. The irony is that they would be much more effective critics if they were not so obviously biased. It is much easier to dismiss their opinions as just more anti-Trump crap when they make obviously bogus attacks based on a Russian collusion hoax, followed by bogus charges of racism and an attempt to rewrite the history of slavery in America..
...There is more.
Rigor in reporting and restraint in judgment once made the Gray Lady noble. Now she is dead, her homicide an inside job.
The transcript, leaked to Slate, reveals a confederacy of ignorance and bigotry involving hundreds of people. The ringleader is executive editor Dean Baquet, who fires the fatal shot into the credibility of his paper.
By giving reporters and editors license to try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, then letting them peddle the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, Baquet helped unleash the hatred that is tearing America apart. Never before has a single media institution played such a destructive role in the nation’s life.
But Baquet is not finished. The 75-minute meeting shows he is now determined to destroy the president by painting him as a racist.
“I think that we’ve got to change,” Baquet tells his assembled staff after acknowledging that the paper was “a little tiny bit flat-footed” when special counsel Robert Mueller performed so poorly before Congress.
In other words, Baquet had swallowed hook, line and sinker Hillary Clinton’s fiction that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.
Then again, this is the same editor whose paper was certain Clinton would win in 2016. Quite a track record.
Which leads to Baquet’s newest idea for stopping Trump.
“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 cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? 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 . . . for the rest of the next two years.”
This isn’t journalism. It’s political activism aligned with the talking points of Democrats. And to liken race relations today to those in the 1960s, as Baquet does, is beyond ignorant.
...
This all stems from a decision by the Times and by the Washington Post that they did not have to be fair to Trump during the campaign and they have extended it to his presidency. The irony is that they would be much more effective critics if they were not so obviously biased. It is much easier to dismiss their opinions as just more anti-Trump crap when they make obviously bogus attacks based on a Russian collusion hoax, followed by bogus charges of racism and an attempt to rewrite the history of slavery in America..
Comments
Post a Comment