New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger has issued a lengthy warning in the Washington Post (9/5/24) on the dangers another Donald Trump presidency would pose to a “free and independent press.”
You might expect this to be a prelude to an announcement that the New York Times would work tirelessly to defend democracy. Instead, Sulzberger heartily defends his own miserably inadequate strategy of “neutrality”—which, in practice, is both-sidesing—making plain his greater concern for the survival of his own newspaper than the survival of US democracy.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at [email protected]. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
As someone who’s been annoyingly and loudly complaining about this for eight years . . . I’m tired.
Journalistic malpractice. Even pre WW2 the newspapers wrote clearer on Hitlers intentions than what they do on trump. Especially now with the dehumanizing rhetoric. And the lying, all the blatant lying… Nothing.
It’s doubly so when you realize that far from being neutral, that the NYT board has repeatedly endorsed the Dem candidate since this guy started running on the GOP ticket:
2016 - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html
2020 - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/opinion/joe-biden-2020-nytimes-endorsement.htmlWhy can’t they do it again?
That’s what some of us (including FAIR) have been saying FOR NINE FUCKING YEARS!
But do the Enlightened Centrists with their cult of civility towards murderers and rapists listen? Of COURSE not! 🤦🤬
Yeah, but if the media accurately depicted Trump as a deeply unserious candidate with absolutely no idea how to run anything, you might stop watching the news to see who is ahead, and don’t their ability to sell ads via a horse race narrative matter more than your silly country and life?
Outrage drives engagement. Been a tactic since the printed word but goddamn if it didn’t explode after CNN and Reagan in the 80’s
I’m not sure that proto-Elamite and Sumerian civilizations using cylinder seals to certify documents written in clay tablets was that outrageous…
And the Greatest Pedant award goes to @Viking_Hippie!!!
I don’t think seals and signet rings count as printed communication in the context of my original comment reply.
It wasn’t pedantry, it was a (poor) attempt at humor lol
When I get pedantic for real, it’s MUCH more annoying and I usually stop myself before hitting send 😁
Oh! We both might’ve missed the mark then, I was trying to yes and the joke you made.
Also I didn’t know about Proto-Elamite tech at all. Thanks for the links!
Today it reminds me of pro wrestling when half of the stories are what this political celebrity said about that political celebrity, and I’ll wonder how similar or different it was long ago.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceNew York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceInternet Archive - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Internet Archive:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
During 2016 election The New York Times published thousands of stories about Clinton email/Benghazi, not one on Trumps lifelong ties to NY/Russian mob. As if The New York Times wasn’t in a particularly knowledgeable position to report on 70 years of NYC construction & mob history
I finally cancelled my subscription because they’ve been doing this bullshit far too often and far too long for it not to be deliberate.
