Hillary Press Agent New York Times Denies Clear Anti-Trump Bias
The Times is a longstanding establishment broadsheet, publishing since 1851 – before Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and America’s Civil War.
It eschews all the news it claims fit to print, substituting state-sponsored propaganda – willfully misinforming readers, betraying, not serving them, not delivering journalism the way it’s supposed to be.
It disgracefully denigrates independent leaders deserving respect, including Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the late Hugo Chavez, current Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and for decades Fidel Castro Ruz.
Throughout this political season’s race for the White House, it served as a virtual Hillary Clinton press agent – inventing reasons to mock and vilify Donald Trump, its disgraceful daily reporting the worst in my memory (since the 1940s) for one duopoly power presidential aspirant over the other.
In January 2013, I wrote an open letter to New York Times editors, perhaps my most widely ever read article. It touched a nerve for readers, sick and tired of scoundrel media rubbish. Included were questions for reflection, asking:
Do imperial wars bother you? Does human suffering matter? Is business as usual OK? Are sham elections? Is democracy for the few alone?
Do corporate interests count more than popular ones? Do wealth, power, privilege, and unchallenged dominance alone matter? What about an unconscionable growing wealth gap?
How about corporate and political lawlessness? What about a private banking cartel controlling America’s money? Is looting the federal Treasury OK? What about reckless money printing serving them?
Do growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair concern you? What about deepening social decay symptomatic of national decline?
How about growing millions worldwide calling America a pariah state for good reason? Waging endless political, economic, social, and hot wars put it in a class by itself.
Are you concerned? Is this the America you support? Dare you call it beautiful?
You have global clout. You could use it responsibly. You could expose what’s wrong and help reverse it. You’d be heroic for trying.
Doing the right thing is its own reward. So is good journalism. Try it sometime and see.
Try publishing “All the News That’s Fit to Print” for real – instead of faking it.
On November 12, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet published a pathetic “open letter to its readers on Trump’s victory.”
It fooled no one with the ability to think, asking “(d)id Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”
Then shamelessly saying “we aim to rededicate ourselves to the most 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.”
Throughout its entire history, for around 166 years, all the news Times editors called fit to print wasn’t (and still isn’t) fit to read.
Can anyone trust its management and editorial staff to change policy now – when it always went the other way before?
Does any thinking reader believe a thing Sulzberger and Baquet said? The Times is a lying machine for wealth, power and privilege.
Each published issue adds to its disgrace. On issues mattering most, especially geopolitical ones and electoral politics at home and abroad, nothing it reports is credible, believable, honest and trustworthy.
The self-styled newspaper of record makes street whores look good by comparison!
A Final Comment
On Sunday, Trump tweeted: “Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the ‘Trump phenomena’ (sic).”
“The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change – doubt it?”
“The @nytimes states today that DJT believes ‘more countries should acquire nuclear weapons.’ How dishonest are they. I never said this!”