Liberal Media Turns On Itself As NYT Promises To "Rededicate" Itself To "Honest" Reporting
'Εεεεεεεϊ !!!!!!! Ελληνικά Συστημικά Μέσα! Μα πού είσαστε!!!;;; μ.λ.π.
Αυτό το αρθράκι στο ZEROHEDGE είναι γραμμένο στα μέτρα τής, από καιρό προσδοκώμενης και μηδέποτε εμφανιζόμενης, αφύπνισης σας, ιδιαίτερα δε η φράση:
"...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..."
Oπου η έλλειψη τιμιότητας περιγράφεται ευγενέστατα ως αποτέλεσμα "...οφειλόμενο είτε σε σύγκρουση συμφερόντων, (μα τι κομψός τρόπος να περιγράψεις την δειλία , την απληστία, την αρπακτικότητα , το θράσος, τον φθόνο , την κακοήθη εκμετάλλευση της αντίληψης - ό,τι είναι νομικά καλυμμένο και τάχα μου ' ορθό' , είναι και δίκαιο- , την διαπλοκή της offshore εταιρείας, την υποταγή της συνείδησης, την τεμπέλικη δουλεία στην αγελαία χειραγώγηση, το δόλιο κρύψιμο πίσω από το αηδιαστικό πέπλο της πολιτικής ορθότητας χωρίς βαθύτερη συνειδητή έρευνα, την έλλειψη αληθινής Παιδείας , την ολική απουσία Αισθητικής, την έλλειψη Ανθρωπιάς), ή , ( και πάλι πολύ ευγενικά τοποθετημένο ) σε καθαρόαιμη ηλιθιότητα " "..whether due to conflicts of interest or due to sheer stupidity - from day one, leading to such idiotic forecasts as an 86% probability for Hillary to win as recently as one week ago...." αφιερώνεται εξαιρετικά, γι αυτό και μεταφράστηκε μετά του σχετικού σχολιασμού.
Αυτό το αρθράκι στο ZEROHEDGE είναι γραμμένο στα μέτρα τής, από καιρό προσδοκώμενης και μηδέποτε εμφανιζόμενης, αφύπνισης σας, ιδιαίτερα δε η φράση:
"...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..."
Oπου η έλλειψη τιμιότητας περιγράφεται ευγενέστατα ως αποτέλεσμα "...οφειλόμενο είτε σε σύγκρουση συμφερόντων, (μα τι κομψός τρόπος να περιγράψεις την δειλία , την απληστία, την αρπακτικότητα , το θράσος, τον φθόνο , την κακοήθη εκμετάλλευση της αντίληψης - ό,τι είναι νομικά καλυμμένο και τάχα μου ' ορθό' , είναι και δίκαιο- , την διαπλοκή της offshore εταιρείας, την υποταγή της συνείδησης, την τεμπέλικη δουλεία στην αγελαία χειραγώγηση, το δόλιο κρύψιμο πίσω από το αηδιαστικό πέπλο της πολιτικής ορθότητας χωρίς βαθύτερη συνειδητή έρευνα, την έλλειψη αληθινής Παιδείας , την ολική απουσία Αισθητικής, την έλλειψη Ανθρωπιάς), ή , ( και πάλι πολύ ευγενικά τοποθετημένο ) σε καθαρόαιμη ηλιθιότητα " "..whether due to conflicts of interest or due to sheer stupidity - from day one, leading to such idiotic forecasts as an 86% probability for Hillary to win as recently as one week ago...." αφιερώνεται εξαιρετικά, γι αυτό και μεταφράστηκε μετά του σχετικού σχολιασμού.
by Tyler Durden
Nov 12, 2016 9:45 PM
In a letter from its owner and
executive editor, the New York Times, a biased media outlet which
together with the rest of the liberal press misreported on the
presidential race - whether due to conflicts of interest or due to sheer
stupidity - from day one, leading to such idiotic forecasts as an 86%
probability for Hillary to win as recently as one week ago (contrast
with our own prediction):
... 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 seapking 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. This is how Sulzberger put it:
The full Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. letter sent on November 11 to readers is below:
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.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly - also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.
Critical response to the NYT's biased propaganda and Sulzeberger's letter from outside the liberal universe bastion also came quick: 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."
* * *
But the most scathing critique of the NYT's endless propaganda came from within the ultraliberal MSNBC's own Joe Scarborough who slammed not only the NYT, but the entire leftist press, and said that the "Clinton campaign believed until 9 o’clock that they had a lock on this, that they were going to win. That fault of that, actually, lies with the media” who "stopped being journalists for the past month, and began being cheerleaders, and began being people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts to show that Hillary was a 92, 93, 99.999 percent chance winner of winning this campaign."
His criticism of the two most anti-Trump outlets, the New York Times and Jeff Bezos' ego blog, the Washington Post, continued when he said the two putblications became obsessed with fulfilling its prophecies that President-elect Donald Trump could not win, and failed to do its job. “It was there the entire time,” he said of Trump’s march to victory in the election. “They didn’t want to hear it, they didn’t want to see it.”
“I want you guys to think about this, at the Times and the Washington Post, people I know and love. I want you to think about this,” Scarborough said.
“When anybody even made the suggestion that Donald Trump could be elected president of the United States, it was their journalistic standards that were questioned,” he said.
He then accused the Times of acting out of intention, not ignorance. “You had a complete blind spot, and you wanted to keep it that way. It was much easier for you to stay in Manhattan and say that they are all racists and bigots.”
He added that if the editors of the Times still believe that 50 million Americans are “racists and bigots … I take pity on you.”
Accusing the NYT reporters of living in their own world, he said “you don’t understand what’s going on. Let’s face it: I didn’t understand what’s going on out there. But you know what (co-host Mark Halperin) and I did that you didn’t do? You know what (co-host Mika Brzezinski) did that you didn’t do? We actually talked to people in Middle America. And they told us they were hurting, and they told us why they were voting for Trump,” he said.
Instead, he said, the Times had only one mission. “Think about what you did. You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump,” Scarborough said.
“You completely ignored the world,” he added.
As he was slamming the NYT, Scarborough held up the front page of Thursday morning’s "shocked" Times with a lead headline that read, “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”
“This is staggering, it really is. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not ‘Disaffected Americans Have a Champion Going to the White House’ or ‘The Country Votes for Fundamental Change,’” Halperin chimed in.
“The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run The New York Times are. This shows that the editors of The New York Times—I have the greatest respect for them—don’t get it,” he said. “This is a Saturday Night Live sketch. You went to a cocktail party the night before and you decided to write this.”
* * *
Then there was ultraliberal Michael Moore, who in a facebook post urged to "Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off."
There were countless more such examples of prominent liberals accusing the press of bias and propaganda long after the fact, even as the press itself refuses to admit any guilt, while itself blaming others, and so the circle continues to turn, and nothing changes in a world in which nobody knows what happens next now that the status quo has been crushed by the people.
Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight.
... 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 seapking 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. This is how Sulzberger put it:
What about the same humor?"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."
The full Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. letter sent on November 11 to readers is below:
Sulzbergers 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 discombobulated.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.
Sincerely,
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher
Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
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.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly - also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.
Critical response to the NYT's biased propaganda and Sulzeberger's letter from outside the liberal universe bastion also came quick: 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."
* * *
But the most scathing critique of the NYT's endless propaganda came from within the ultraliberal MSNBC's own Joe Scarborough who slammed not only the NYT, but the entire leftist press, and said that the "Clinton campaign believed until 9 o’clock that they had a lock on this, that they were going to win. That fault of that, actually, lies with the media” who "stopped being journalists for the past month, and began being cheerleaders, and began being people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts to show that Hillary was a 92, 93, 99.999 percent chance winner of winning this campaign."
His criticism of the two most anti-Trump outlets, the New York Times and Jeff Bezos' ego blog, the Washington Post, continued when he said the two putblications became obsessed with fulfilling its prophecies that President-elect Donald Trump could not win, and failed to do its job. “It was there the entire time,” he said of Trump’s march to victory in the election. “They didn’t want to hear it, they didn’t want to see it.”
“I want you guys to think about this, at the Times and the Washington Post, people I know and love. I want you to think about this,” Scarborough said.
“When anybody even made the suggestion that Donald Trump could be elected president of the United States, it was their journalistic standards that were questioned,” he said.
He then accused the Times of acting out of intention, not ignorance. “You had a complete blind spot, and you wanted to keep it that way. It was much easier for you to stay in Manhattan and say that they are all racists and bigots.”
He added that if the editors of the Times still believe that 50 million Americans are “racists and bigots … I take pity on you.”
Accusing the NYT reporters of living in their own world, he said “you don’t understand what’s going on. Let’s face it: I didn’t understand what’s going on out there. But you know what (co-host Mark Halperin) and I did that you didn’t do? You know what (co-host Mika Brzezinski) did that you didn’t do? We actually talked to people in Middle America. And they told us they were hurting, and they told us why they were voting for Trump,” he said.
Instead, he said, the Times had only one mission. “Think about what you did. You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump,” Scarborough said.
“You completely ignored the world,” he added.
As he was slamming the NYT, Scarborough held up the front page of Thursday morning’s "shocked" Times with a lead headline that read, “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”
“This is staggering, it really is. This is the day after a surprising underdog sweeping victory and their headline is not ‘Disaffected Americans Have a Champion Going to the White House’ or ‘The Country Votes for Fundamental Change,’” Halperin chimed in.
“The headline is about how disappointed the friends of the people who run The New York Times are. This shows that the editors of The New York Times—I have the greatest respect for them—don’t get it,” he said. “This is a Saturday Night Live sketch. You went to a cocktail party the night before and you decided to write this.”
* * *
Then there was ultraliberal Michael Moore, who in a facebook post urged to "Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off."
* * *Morning After To-Do List:
1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.
2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off.
3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin.
4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.
5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).
There were countless more such examples of prominent liberals accusing the press of bias and propaganda long after the fact, even as the press itself refuses to admit any guilt, while itself blaming others, and so the circle continues to turn, and nothing changes in a world in which nobody knows what happens next now that the status quo has been crushed by the people.
Finally, speaking of Saturday Night Live sketches, we can't wait to see how the liberal "comedy" show - which just like the NYT existed in a world of its own throughout the presidential campaign - spins the election results tonight.