The New York Times has been telling readers that its reporting is fair for years. Really? Just take a moment to read the headlines today on the front page and in the editorial section and decide for yourself whether the its reporting is balanced.
Articles include: “Trump’s Rocky Start Jeopardizes Leverage,” “Marchers Map Out Next Steps.” “Proposed Cure for Health Act Could Harm Costliest Patients,” “An Administration of Empty Seats,” “Dissidents! We Are Legion,” “Things Can Only Get Worse.”
Wow. Talk about unfair and unbalanced reporting and commentary. And I didn’t even read pages A2 through A21 yet.
I really do appreciate that the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. And I totally buy off on the age old adage that a free press ensures our democracy. Supposedly it keeps the government honest.
My problem is that the Times is constantly blathering about how bad Trump will be as a president prospectively while it said little about the actual missteps and inane decisions of Obama for eight long years. I won’t go through my extensive list of Obama failures (I already published by last “Obama Onslaught” piece).
Why is one of the premier newspapers in the world incapable of reporting in a balanced fashion? Does one need to be a far left wing liberal to land a job at the Times? Full disclosure: I was turned down for a job twice at the Times.
After Trump won the election I recall an article by Charles Blow, a Times op-ed columnist, who vowed to do everything humanly possible to damage Trump’s administration. It was a remarkable thing to read. I do understand that the editorial/op-ed pages are reserved for opinions of the Times, their columnists and the readers, but keep control of your emotions, Mr. Blow. Full disclosure: I’ve had 60 letters to the editor published by the Times.
Given that the Times indicated that its print circulation in mid-2016 was just under 600 thousand plus another 1.5 million of digital subscriptions, it’s hard to believe the paper really has that much influence outside of New York City. So it’s pretty arrogant for Times’ reporters and columnists to think they can impact public opinion to any great extent when about 320 million Americans don’t read their paper each day.
You may ask, why do I read the Times? For one thing it’s well written. But I must know what the enemy is thinking. I must know what the most extreme liberal perspectives on critical subjects are so I can publish the opposite viewpoint.
When you read the Times you must consider beforehand that the reporting is tilted (I’m being generous). If you do so and screen out the bias, there’s a lot to be learned.
I know that many Americans are crushed that Trump won the election. If Hillary had won I would have felt the same way along with millions of others (I would not have marched against the new president, however.) That’s the way democracies operate. There are winners and losers.
It’s folly to think that so many in the press are doing what they can to derail Trumps’ presidency. What’s their upside if he fails? Wars, a bad economy, racial tension, growing inequality, more terrorism?
Trump is not a nice fellow. Most people in America would not want to socialize with the man. But if you filter out the rough exterior and campaign rhetoric, you might be surprised that you are in favor of many of his agenda items.
Don’t believe everything printed in the Times. Don’t be insular and myopic. And don’t root against our president.