New York Times forfeits ‘newspaper of record’ title

With this election, the New York Times has in effect announced a new business as well as journalistic strategy.  Instead of its hard won, expensive, and demanding strategy of being the newspaper of record, where all significant stories can be found (and therefore indispensible to a broad range of readers), it has become a partisan cheerleader, as its media columnist Jim Rutenberg all but conceded in a now infamous August 7 column.

Of course, the most insidious form of bias consists of not reporting the stories that contradict the preferred narrative.  All the more so when the Times maintains its archaic ex-slogan at the top of the paper: “All the news that’s fit to print.”  This is false advertising.  Definitive evidence is now available.

The nation’s largest news-gathering agency, the Associated Press, spent years doing the sort of investigative journalism celebrated in thousands of banquets, awards, and honors that “professional journalists” obsessively confer on each other.  The resulting story documented that more than half of the visitors that were not from outside governments and official agencies that met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were donors to the foundation bearing her name.

The Times pretended for most of a week that the story did not exist.  I confess that I do not exhaustively read the Times every day, so I hadn’t noticed the vacuum.  But Steven Braun and Eileen Sullivan, writing at the New York Observer (which is owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Feldshcreiber), claim:

The New York Times has taken its censorship a step further; the day after the AP story broke there was no mention of it in their entire paper and this has remained the case until late Monday afternoon—a week later—when Maggie Haberman finally mentioned that “[Clinton] and her campaign have denounced an Associated Press report.”

Assuming this is true, somewhere in the Times editorial bureaucracy, the decision was made to ignore the story.  I’d be very interested in knowing how that decision was reached.  Maybe the Times ombudsman will address the issue?

Of course, the Times was not alone in attacking the story.  But the Times has claimed to be the newspaper of record.  That’s clearly not true anymore.  The Times is now the lifestyle (including ideology) guide to affluent cosmopolitan, deep blue urbanites everywhere.  As a business strategy, it makes sense.  They spend a lot of money on themselves and so are a great market for advertisers.

The Braun and Sullivan piece has a lot more on other media suppression of the story, and the sheer coincidence that some of these organizations have also donated to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

With this election, the New York Times has in effect announced a new business as well as journalistic strategy.  Instead of its hard won, expensive, and demanding strategy of being the newspaper of record, where all significant stories can be found (and therefore indispensible to a broad range of readers), it has become a partisan cheerleader, as its media columnist Jim Rutenberg all but conceded in a now infamous August 7 column.

Of course, the most insidious form of bias consists of not reporting the stories that contradict the preferred narrative.  All the more so when the Times maintains its archaic ex-slogan at the top of the paper: “All the news that’s fit to print.”  This is false advertising.  Definitive evidence is now available.

The nation’s largest news-gathering agency, the Associated Press, spent years doing the sort of investigative journalism celebrated in thousands of banquets, awards, and honors that “professional journalists” obsessively confer on each other.  The resulting story documented that more than half of the visitors that were not from outside governments and official agencies that met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were donors to the foundation bearing her name.

The Times pretended for most of a week that the story did not exist.  I confess that I do not exhaustively read the Times every day, so I hadn’t noticed the vacuum.  But Steven Braun and Eileen Sullivan, writing at the New York Observer (which is owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Feldshcreiber), claim:

The New York Times has taken its censorship a step further; the day after the AP story broke there was no mention of it in their entire paper and this has remained the case until late Monday afternoon—a week later—when Maggie Haberman finally mentioned that “[Clinton] and her campaign have denounced an Associated Press report.”

Assuming this is true, somewhere in the Times editorial bureaucracy, the decision was made to ignore the story.  I’d be very interested in knowing how that decision was reached.  Maybe the Times ombudsman will address the issue?

Of course, the Times was not alone in attacking the story.  But the Times has claimed to be the newspaper of record.  That’s clearly not true anymore.  The Times is now the lifestyle (including ideology) guide to affluent cosmopolitan, deep blue urbanites everywhere.  As a business strategy, it makes sense.  They spend a lot of money on themselves and so are a great market for advertisers.

The Braun and Sullivan piece has a lot more on other media suppression of the story, and the sheer coincidence that some of these organizations have also donated to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.