#FakeNews NYT has admitted its bias

The New York Times (NYT) published this in August 2016:

If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you've never approached anything in your career.  If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional.

The title of the article is "Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism."  The obvious question is, how can Trump have anything to do with objective journalism?  After all, an objective journalist will publish every horrible thing about Trump that he can dig up.  If there is dirt on Trump, objective journalists will publish it without having to abandon their objectivity.

But what the NYT is really saying is that journalists should not restrict themselves to publishing the truth or that journalists should feel no obligation to publish stories that reflect well on Trump.

Essentially, the NYT is saying the purpose of journalism isn't to inform the people and let the people decide, the way the Constitution envisions things, but to ensure that the people agree with what journalists want even if that means that journalists have to lie or conceal the truth.

What the NYT did was declare that it was no longer a news source, but a propaganda machine whose objective was defeating Trump, not giving the people the truth and letting us decide.

It's important to dredge this up to remind ourselves that the fake news media have already publicly admitted that they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Note that the author, Jim Rutenberg, doesn't say "if a reporter finds evidence that Trump is any of these horrible things," but that if a reporter "feels" that Trump is any of those things.  The NYT is saying truth is irrelevant, that reporting is based not on the facts reporters find, but on the objective reporters want to achieve.

These people are admitting that they are biased liars who are concerned with preventing the people from electing anyone they, the reporters, don't approve of.  They're fascists.

Nothing they produce can be trusted.  They're not at all different from the old Pravda newspaper run by the Soviet Union.

Further, even if they are "good" people, do you doubt that if they honestly think they're fighting a mad demagogue, they would make things up and say they got it from "anonymous" sources?  Remember this is the fake news media that ran with the "hands up, don't shoot" fiction long after they knew it was a lie, but who continue to ignore the mass murder of African-Americans in Democrat-run Chicago.

The fact that the NYT just hired an openly racist opinion writer who tweeted, "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," shows that the paper doesn't really care about racism or the truth; it said she was just kidding.  Can you imagine if, say, Fox News hired someone who tweeted, "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old Black men," how the media would react?  It certainly wouldn't be that "it's ok she was just being ironic."  Actually, we can be sure about that since Ann Coulter has never said anything that noxious yet the fake news media are constantly calling her a monster.

Hence, whenever you hear that the fake news media have some "bombshell" on Trump, take a breath and wait for the truth to come out.

Just the other day, for example, the media were awash with talk of Democrat Cory Booker having "secret" emails that would destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

The only problems were that the emails weren't secret; the Republicans in the Senate had already released them; and that while Booker claimed that they showed that Kavanaugh supported race-based profiling, in fact, in them, Kavanaugh explicitly said he opposed race-based profiling.

But this shows why you need to talk to everyone you know to spread the truth.  Most folks who read only the local paper or watch the evening news know only that "brave" Cory Booker has emails that will destroy Kavanaugh.  If the people you know never learn the truth, they may end up voting Democrat.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

The New York Times (NYT) published this in August 2016:

If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation's worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you've never approached anything in your career.  If you view a Trump presidency as something that's potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you've ever been to being oppositional.

The title of the article is "Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism."  The obvious question is, how can Trump have anything to do with objective journalism?  After all, an objective journalist will publish every horrible thing about Trump that he can dig up.  If there is dirt on Trump, objective journalists will publish it without having to abandon their objectivity.

But what the NYT is really saying is that journalists should not restrict themselves to publishing the truth or that journalists should feel no obligation to publish stories that reflect well on Trump.

Essentially, the NYT is saying the purpose of journalism isn't to inform the people and let the people decide, the way the Constitution envisions things, but to ensure that the people agree with what journalists want even if that means that journalists have to lie or conceal the truth.

What the NYT did was declare that it was no longer a news source, but a propaganda machine whose objective was defeating Trump, not giving the people the truth and letting us decide.

It's important to dredge this up to remind ourselves that the fake news media have already publicly admitted that they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Note that the author, Jim Rutenberg, doesn't say "if a reporter finds evidence that Trump is any of these horrible things," but that if a reporter "feels" that Trump is any of those things.  The NYT is saying truth is irrelevant, that reporting is based not on the facts reporters find, but on the objective reporters want to achieve.

These people are admitting that they are biased liars who are concerned with preventing the people from electing anyone they, the reporters, don't approve of.  They're fascists.

Nothing they produce can be trusted.  They're not at all different from the old Pravda newspaper run by the Soviet Union.

Further, even if they are "good" people, do you doubt that if they honestly think they're fighting a mad demagogue, they would make things up and say they got it from "anonymous" sources?  Remember this is the fake news media that ran with the "hands up, don't shoot" fiction long after they knew it was a lie, but who continue to ignore the mass murder of African-Americans in Democrat-run Chicago.

The fact that the NYT just hired an openly racist opinion writer who tweeted, "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," shows that the paper doesn't really care about racism or the truth; it said she was just kidding.  Can you imagine if, say, Fox News hired someone who tweeted, "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old Black men," how the media would react?  It certainly wouldn't be that "it's ok she was just being ironic."  Actually, we can be sure about that since Ann Coulter has never said anything that noxious yet the fake news media are constantly calling her a monster.

Hence, whenever you hear that the fake news media have some "bombshell" on Trump, take a breath and wait for the truth to come out.

Just the other day, for example, the media were awash with talk of Democrat Cory Booker having "secret" emails that would destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

The only problems were that the emails weren't secret; the Republicans in the Senate had already released them; and that while Booker claimed that they showed that Kavanaugh supported race-based profiling, in fact, in them, Kavanaugh explicitly said he opposed race-based profiling.

But this shows why you need to talk to everyone you know to spread the truth.  Most folks who read only the local paper or watch the evening news know only that "brave" Cory Booker has emails that will destroy Kavanaugh.  If the people you know never learn the truth, they may end up voting Democrat.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.