How the New York Times Helped Elect Trumpy

Now that the election is over, the Times suddenly discovers we have a self-inflicted border crisis!

There comes a point where your bias becomes so blatant and obvious that it stops hurting, and starts helping, its intended target.

WSJ columnist Jason Riley nails it!!


All the News That’s Suddenly Fit to Print After the Election

By Jason L. Riley
Dec. 17, 2024 5:13 pm ET

News stories on the New York Times website include this postscript: “When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know.” It’s hard not to chuckle at the faux humility.

The Gray Lady’s political coverage has been due for a major course correction at least since Donald Trump’s shocking victory in 2016. So far, that hasn’t happened. The paper has long leaned left, and Republicans have come to expect less-friendly treatment than what Democrats receive. Still, balanced and straightforward reporting has become more of an afterthought in the Trump era. Even following his re-election last month, which included winning the popular vote, the Times and other major news outlets remain stuck in resistance mode. The goal seems to be to take down the incoming administration, not to cover it.

This phenomenon can manifest itself in what the press chooses to highlight as well as in what it chooses to minimize or ignore. There were innumerable stories about Mr. Trump’s supposed ties to Russia, which turned out to be nonexistent, but next to no interest in former Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency officials spreading disinformation about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Joe Biden had to showcase his cognitive decline in a nationally televised presidential debate before most press outlets deigned to give the story the attention it deserved. Democratic efforts to bankrupt Mr. Trump, keep him off the ballot and put him in prison were portrayed by reporters as politics-as-usual, when in fact they were an unprecedented manipulation of the legal system to destroy a political opponent.

What drove the media’s interest or non-interest in these stories had little to do with their intrinsic newsworthiness and almost everything to do with whether the stories hurt Mr. Trump and helped his adversaries. The political press continues to assume the public doesn’t notice.

Take last week’s front-page story in the New York Times highlighting the extraordinary levels of illegal immigration over the past four years. Under a headline “Recent Stream of Immigrants Is Largest Ever,” we are made aware that the pace of arrivals exceeds “any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States.” We’re told that around “60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization.” And we’re informed that while unrest in Haiti, Venezuela, Ukraine and other places has contributed to the migrant inflow, “the Biden administration’s policy appears to have been the biggest factor.”

There was nothing wrong with the story’s content, but the post-election timing makes you wonder. Five weeks after an election in which illegal immigration was foremost on the minds of many voters, the Times now allows that the current administration’s lax border-security policies, not turmoil abroad, were the main driver of the worst migrant crisis in U.S. history. It’s a story that might have been written dozens of times over the past year but wasn’t because doing so would have helped Mr. Trump advance his signature issue and harmed his political opponents. This is what happens when the press is more interested in shaping public opinion than in reporting the facts. It happens a lot these days.

The gambit failed and Kamala Harris lost. Possibly, the press was one of the reasons she lost. The “over-the-top displays of partisan bias by the media during this election cycle might have helped Trump get elected,” wrote Commentary magazine media columnist Christine Rosen. “This might be the first national election in which media bias proved fatal not for its intended target, but rather for the media themselves and their preferred political party, the Democrats. Unable to identify their own liabilities, they suffocated inside their own partisan bubble.”

To address its liabilities, the press would have to acknowledge that it has some, and fat chance that will happen. Like Mr. Biden, who insisted that the migrant surge was seasonal, the elite media is in denial. And like liberal Democrats broadly, too many in the media see themselves as operating on a higher level of consciousness when assessing the issues of the day. If their top concerns aren’t shared by most voters, then it’s the voters who have the problem. Thus, people who want tighter borders are xenophobic. People who don’t want to ban fossil fuels are climate deniers. People concerned about public safety are racist. And if you’re a male voter who didn’t cast a ballot for Ms. Harris, you’re obviously sexist.

When mainstream media outlets consider half of the country to be not only in error but in sin, journalism has a problem. And it’s a problem unlikely to be solved over the next four years.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/all-the-...ction-f4a0d624

WSJ - the new (-ish) voice of MAGA.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread, yssup?

The topic is the New York Times, not the WSJ.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread, yssup?

The topic is the New York Times, not the WSJ. Originally Posted by lustylad

I think the question should be does he have anything of substance to offer to any thread.

A big thank you to the NY Times. The next 4 years will be great with President Trump at the helm.

Now that the election is over, the Times suddenly discovers we have a self-inflicted border crisis!

There comes a point where your bias becomes so blatant and obvious that it stops hurting, and starts helping, its intended target.

WSJ columnist Jason Riley nails it!!


All the News That’s Suddenly Fit to Print After the Election

By Jason L. Riley
Dec. 17, 2024 5:13 pm ET

News stories on the New York Times website include this postscript: “When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know.” It’s hard not to chuckle at the faux humility.

The Gray Lady’s political coverage has been due for a major course correction at least since Donald Trump’s shocking victory in 2016. So far, that hasn’t happened. The paper has long leaned left, and Republicans have come to expect less-friendly treatment than what Democrats receive. Still, balanced and straightforward reporting has become more of an afterthought in the Trump era. Even following his re-election last month, which included winning the popular vote, the Times and other major news outlets remain stuck in resistance mode. The goal seems to be to take down the incoming administration, not to cover it.

This phenomenon can manifest itself in what the press chooses to highlight as well as in what it chooses to minimize or ignore. There were innumerable stories about Mr. Trump’s supposed ties to Russia, which turned out to be nonexistent, but next to no interest in former Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency officials spreading disinformation about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Joe Biden had to showcase his cognitive decline in a nationally televised presidential debate before most press outlets deigned to give the story the attention it deserved. Democratic efforts to bankrupt Mr. Trump, keep him off the ballot and put him in prison were portrayed by reporters as politics-as-usual, when in fact they were an unprecedented manipulation of the legal system to destroy a political opponent.

What drove the media’s interest or non-interest in these stories had little to do with their intrinsic newsworthiness and almost everything to do with whether the stories hurt Mr. Trump and helped his adversaries. The political press continues to assume the public doesn’t notice.

Take last week’s front-page story in the New York Times highlighting the extraordinary levels of illegal immigration over the past four years. Under a headline “Recent Stream of Immigrants Is Largest Ever,” we are made aware that the pace of arrivals exceeds “any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States.” We’re told that around “60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization.” And we’re informed that while unrest in Haiti, Venezuela, Ukraine and other places has contributed to the migrant inflow, “the Biden administration’s policy appears to have been the biggest factor.”

There was nothing wrong with the story’s content, but the post-election timing makes you wonder. Five weeks after an election in which illegal immigration was foremost on the minds of many voters, the Times now allows that the current administration’s lax border-security policies, not turmoil abroad, were the main driver of the worst migrant crisis in U.S. history. It’s a story that might have been written dozens of times over the past year but wasn’t because doing so would have helped Mr. Trump advance his signature issue and harmed his political opponents. This is what happens when the press is more interested in shaping public opinion than in reporting the facts. It happens a lot these days.

The gambit failed and Kamala Harris lost. Possibly, the press was one of the reasons she lost. The “over-the-top displays of partisan bias by the media during this election cycle might have helped Trump get elected,” wrote Commentary magazine media columnist Christine Rosen. “This might be the first national election in which media bias proved fatal not for its intended target, but rather for the media themselves and their preferred political party, the Democrats. Unable to identify their own liabilities, they suffocated inside their own partisan bubble.”

To address its liabilities, the press would have to acknowledge that it has some, and fat chance that will happen. Like Mr. Biden, who insisted that the migrant surge was seasonal, the elite media is in denial. And like liberal Democrats broadly, too many in the media see themselves as operating on a higher level of consciousness when assessing the issues of the day. If their top concerns aren’t shared by most voters, then it’s the voters who have the problem. Thus, people who want tighter borders are xenophobic. People who don’t want to ban fossil fuels are climate deniers. People concerned about public safety are racist. And if you’re a male voter who didn’t cast a ballot for Ms. Harris, you’re obviously sexist.

When mainstream media outlets consider half of the country to be not only in error but in sin, journalism has a problem. And it’s a problem unlikely to be solved over the next four years.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/all-the-...ction-f4a0d624 Originally Posted by lustylad

The Majority of the American Electorate finally realized that The Main Stream Media, Hollywood, Big Tech, Pop Culture, and all of Rinos were full of shit.

That stupid Cunt Joy Reid on MSNBC said…….”Kamala ran a perfect campaign. She had all of the endorsements from Hollywood, major Pop Singers, Union Bosses, Late night Comedians, and Billionaires.

Do you think Joy STILL doesn’t get it.

The MAGA assault on the media is relentless. If ignorance is bliss, then there's no wonder they're so delighted by Murdoch publications like WSJ and Fox. Unfortunately the OP doesn't realize that one media outlet criticizing another is part of the MAGA narrative. How many "enemy of the state" threads do we have to read?

My comment apparently struck the hypocrite nerve.

And I don't think the NYT elected Trump. I think social media misinformation did. Gossip.

My comment apparently struck the hypocrite nerve. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not at all.

Unlike the New York Times, the WSJ is a product of real journalism. It carefully segregates factual reporting versus opinion. And it doesn't hype or suppress important stories for partisan reasons.

Did you forget how the Wall Street Journal was the source that originally broke the story of trump's so-called "hush money" payments to Stormy Daniels?

Try to keep up.

And get back on topic. Can the New York Times reform itself? Will it? Its uber-woke staff of so-called "journalists" would have a meltdown.