Biased, anti-Trump coverage admission by ex-NYT editor

Truth has a left-wing messenger who has a book to sell

In her upcoming book, “Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” former New York Times executive editor, Jill Abramson spills the beans on the newspaper’s anti-Trump bias. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis,“ she acknowledged.

Ms. Abramson said the paper enjoyed a significant “Trump bump” in digital subscriptions since the president took office and now that demand is driving coverage.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for The Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson wrote. Her book was reviewed by Fox News.

Abramson also complains about the unabashed liberal bent taken on by her successor, executive editor Dean Baquet.

But don’t be tempted to give her too much credit. She’s no fan of the President either, referring to his “fake news” attacks as a “cheap way of trying to undermine the credibility of the Times’ reporting as something to be accepted as truth only by liberals in urban, cosmopolitan areas.”

Sounds right on target, except for demeaning his accurate account as “cheap.”

 The Washington Times carries the full report. It’s written by Howard Kurtz, formerly of the Washington Post and The Daily Beast. He has written for the leftist New Republic and was a regular on CNN, which he left to join Fox News. If that seems like an odd career trajectory, remember Juan Williams, Jessica Tarlov and that Sean Hannity originally shared duties with extreme leftist Alan Colmes. It’s not at all unusual for Fox hosts to feature liberal guests.

CNN, MSNBC and their media ilk prefer their contributors to be reliable regurgitaters of skewed news and Trump detractors. That desire drove the compelling case for Republicrat Jeff Flake —- and his frequent appearances on those networks. Turncoats have gravitas.

Jill Abramson is simply confirming what we’ve already known.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Biased, anti-Trump coverage admission by ex-NYT editor

  1. Frankly Speaking says:

    Truth has no relevancy with the mainstream media. One only has to read the Arizona Republic to see that agenda pushing is the sole reason for its existence.

  2. Realist says:

    Jill Abramson was as much a player in this deceit as those she is now pointing the finger at. She’s angry that she was fired and is now “exposing” what we have known all along. Her credibility is zero.

  3. Michael Schmitz says:

    While Abramson has an axe to grind, the NY Slimes in the past has hidden bias to an art form while supposedly presenting “straight news”. Today, the Slimes and other partisan media are flat out cheering and promoting liberal causes after declaring war on our President. This 2003 book lays it out in detail as to how the NY Slimes used to hide their bias. One will never look at “straight news” the same again after reading it. Still worth a read.

    https://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/B000685KVK

  4. Maggie says:

    The New York Times is no different than the local Arizona Repulsive. Trump antagonism is their driving force. President Trump has given us two Supreme Court justices, is committed to securing our border, supports our troops and cares deeply about the USA and doesn’t allow himself to be bullied by the left. He’ll have my vote in 2020.

    Don’t buy into the propaganda that he has no support among women. All of my (female) friends are Trump supporters. This fallacy is nothing but trickery to make less informed women think they are out of sync to support our President. The Hollyweird crowd pushes this trash.

  5. jake sez says:

    On a New Years Eve telecast the commentators were discussing how the new year was being dedicated to journalist. It’s purpose was to call attention to the perils that they face in reporting the news. These perils ranged from death in the middle east to the accusations they faced here in the United States.

    I an always surprised at award shows or other gatherings when the attendees heap accolades and glamor upon themselves for doing their jobs. Its called peer praise and recognition. Even those who don’t do the job very well are included. Especially when they are the only ones heaping the praise upon each other. It would be a little more convincing if these congratulations came from someone other than the ones looking for the praise. It reminds me of a bunch of people standing around at a party slapping each other on the back and telling everyone that they are great people.

    I guess if you control the media and what reaches the people, you can say whatever you want and who is going to dispute it? Look at liberals, they will make false statement after false statement and the media will praise them for their wisdom. The blind leading the blind. They don’t realize that not all of us are blind as well.