Posted on 11/21/2016 6:30:15 PM PST by Olog-hai
The readers of The New York Times are speaking out against the newspaper's election coverage and complaining to their offices at “five times the normal level.”
“The number of complaints coming into the public editor’s office is five times the normal level, and the pace has only just recently tapered off,” public editor Liz Spayd wrote. “My colleague Thomas Feyer, who oversees the letters to the editor, says the influx from readers is one of the largest since Sept. 11.”
“From my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office,” she added, “I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Oh no, there was no bias in their coverage.
There is only one thing to do! They must re-double their attacks on Trump!!
The NYT covered both sides fairly... according to the NYT.
They need to manufacture more Fake News to advance their agenda. Many are upset with their low energy in that regard.
My local newspaper printed every crap anti-Trump story they coudl pull off the wire from WaPo and the AP and while I was somewhat inclined to call them on it, I think it is funnier to let them come to the realization that despite these efforts, the area went Trump by a 55% margin. So obviously whatever they tell people has no credibilty.
The NYT is clearly different, but I suspect most NYers were anti-Trump and pro-Clinton democrats to begin with. Just look at the Mayor they elected...
AND to think I didn’t even bother to complain.
Tears ,,
They are very Sweet!
The NYT cannot be trusted on anything.
....They need to manufacture more Fake News to advance their agenda...
Are they named as a fake news site on the new Google application?
Sounds reasonable. I'd rate the Times' bias level about five times more onerous than the usual level of suck.
Lying to their readers and telling them that Clintoonie had the election in the bag was a big mistake. Most of their readers believed them and didn’t bother to vote. LOL. A good old exploding cigar.
Google is apparently Fake News now.
Lol. But that is exactly what they will do.
Trump should have a one on one meeting with Carlos Slim.
On election night they had state-by-state coverage which I thought was excellent. This was not commentary, just the vote count and predictions from their hired statisticians of where it was leading, which took the form of sort of like a speedometer.
I remember seeing for a while that Mrs. Bill Clinton was leading Pennsylvania in the actual votes counted, but the NYT was showing a 75% likelihood that Trump would win, which he did. At the night wore on the 75% became 95% and the rest is history.
So, when does their in depth investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s email server begin?
Followed that too. It was excellent, and surprising.
Yes it is! Google engineers its software to promote liberal thinking, and diminishes any conservative viewpoints. Google is not to be trusted.
The way around this is to use multiple search engines, and preferably ones that do not track and record your searches.
We watched cable on election night, but I also had the NY Times state “dashboards” up...5 different browsers...one each for FL,NC,PA,MI and WI...the coverage on these web sites was remarkable...they had their prediction for the state backed up by how many votes were left to be counted and who would most likely get what percentage of those votes...it constantly changed.
Also you could click on each county to find out the vote count for both candidates...we crossed checked some counties with results from 2012 and could get a great idea of how many votes each would get; to the point of knowing who would win the state well before the MSM would call it.
One of the best moments of the night was from Florida before the bigger cities in the Panhandle (1/2 hour behind the rest of Florida) vote was counted. Clinton had a pretty good sized lead based mostly on doing well in SouthEast FL...Miami/Dade to Palm Beach Counties.
The WolfMan on CNN kept saying Clinton was leading Florida and it looked good for her in the state. We had already figured out that Trump was about to get close to 150,000 net votes from the Panhandle that would land like a ton of bricks on the WolfMan. We guessed that Team Clinton was finishing their 2nd case of victory champaign right about then.
It was better than watching Boston College’s Doug Flutie’s Miracle in Miami 48 yard TD pass to beat U of Miami in the last second! Well WolfMan just about had a heart attack on air...he couldn’t believe it when Trump went from down 20k to up 120k in one minute.
The night watching CNN and WolfMan going crazy on John King (there has to be more votes for Clinton somewhere) in Wi, PA and MI.just kept getting better.
Really priceless!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.