"I can't stop drinking and now you want me to stop hating?"
"No, just pretend to stop hating."
"Too complicated! Forget it!"
Posted on 10/15/2017 11:53:13 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
The New York Times made it crystal clear in last year’s presidential race that it would no longer hide its disdain of Donald Trump. But now it’s suddenly troubled that readers might get the idea its reporters are biased.
In a memo Friday, the paper laid out new social-media guidelines for employees. Journalists are no longer allowed to “express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.”
They’ll have to be more careful about clicking “like,” and they’re dissuaded from joining secret or private groups on Facebook. The paper also wants them to be more thoughtful when engaging with readers and not to reply to abusive comments.
On its face, there’s some good advice in these online rules for most people. But the Times’ new edict appears meant specifically to protect its image as an objective source of news.
Just last week, for example, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a video that caught Times audience-strategy editor Nick Dudich on hidden camera talking openly about ways he manipulates news coverage and pushes his agenda.
Last year, Executive Editor Dean Baquet admitted Trump “challenged” the paper’s efforts to be impartial. “We’ve never seen anybody like him,” Baquet said. As a result, he added, “we have changed.”
Baquet defended the paper’s use of stronger language — the word “lie,” in particular — to describe Trump’s assertions. He said it was important that the paper “not obfuscate” and promised to apply the same standard for all “future politicians.”
It certainly seemed that the paper, at long last, had decided to lift the veil meant to obscure the bias in its reporting. Most honest observers today would agree the Times, if not trying to lead the Resistance, at least tilts regularly against Trump
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
They could continue to be totally partisan ad prevaricative and it would not undercut the Times' 21st Century Journalistic reputation.
I might actually have a tiny amount of respect for the Times
if they simply made their reporters announce their liberalism
in print.
The only way to clean out bias in the New York Times is to do to it what the Syrians/Iranians/Hezbollah, Kurds, Russians, Americans, etc. are doing to Raqqa. Raze it to the ground and then salt it.
It too, like Carthage, must be totally destroyed like the media cancer it is.
Perhaps one day an honest researcher/reporter will reveal the extent of treason that the NYT’s has performed against America for the Soviets, Red Chinese, No. Vietnamese, and Cubans (from Duranty to Matthews, Burchett to Pinch Sulzberger) and many others.
Most honest observers today know that the Times is trying to lead the Resistance and has done so since the final vote tallies came in. Its writers and editors have become fat and lazy basking in their aura of unquestionable certitude and no longer bother to pretend to be even-handed out of a scarcely hidden conviction that they are infallible, where the truth is that they are insufferable.
if they simply made their reporters announce their liberalism
The Times has been a Pulitzer-prize winning, lying newspaper ever since the thirties, at least.
I particularly don’t appreciate their blatant anti-semitism and anti-Israel bias. For this reason, the physical NYT has never been brought into my home and I make a great effort not to click on any NYT stories online either, lest they benefit from it somehow. And lately, they are just a totally liberal shill making no attempt whatsoever to be “fair or balanced”. Therefore, their main use would be to line a parakeet cage or litter box to anyone wanting actual news and not propaganda.
Liberal “Journalism”: How can we fool you today?
What the heck? Journalistic bias IS their reputation!
That’s right; “how to lie more effectively for future elections”.
They should be required to express their personal opinions as a matter of full disclosure. Nobody is entirely free of bias, but at least the readers would have the necessary information to evaluate the report.
The NYTimes thinks y’all stupid. But people don’t need no **&in’ clues from reporters’ posts on social media to see the bias. Just look at the headlines for “straight” news items the editors concoct.
If this is really happening and will be enforced (for how long?) I am calling this the Harvey Weinstein effect. But the gays run the NYT so do not trust anything from them. The gay and lezz reporters too. Trust and verify.
They really need to stop believing that people are stupid. We all know the Times is a Leftist rag, sheesh.
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.