choomer
Well-Known Member
As most know, the majority (almost the totality) of MSM had some cognitive dissonance in regards to election predictions (as well as a good portion of regular "news" too).
The Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. (owner of the NYT) letter sent on November 11 to readers is below (italics added):
"To our readers,
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?
As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.
We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team. We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty."
Sincerely,
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher
Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
Is this not a glaring admission of of NOT being dedicated to that simple core principle in journalism of telling the truth?
Why do you have to "rededicate" to a core principle that makes the profession of news reporting worthwhile?
How can they (MSM) not understand that it's this type of "news reporting" that drives people to alt-media sites, some just as biased in ideology as the MSM has proven to be?
News used to be news by being unbiased, succinct, and not omitting facts the advertiser would be unhappy with if reported.
Instead of that, the media seems to be delving more and more into that which they were willing to label as propaganda when coming from a foreign source.
Now the MSM has become that which richly deserved their derision for the use of propaganda as news in the past.
The priceless addition of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (the Tom Hanks surrogate) lambasting the NYT is the height of irony.
The Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. (owner of the NYT) letter sent on November 11 to readers is below (italics added):
"To our readers,
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?
As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.
We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team. We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty."
Sincerely,
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher
Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
Is this not a glaring admission of of NOT being dedicated to that simple core principle in journalism of telling the truth?
Why do you have to "rededicate" to a core principle that makes the profession of news reporting worthwhile?
How can they (MSM) not understand that it's this type of "news reporting" that drives people to alt-media sites, some just as biased in ideology as the MSM has proven to be?
News used to be news by being unbiased, succinct, and not omitting facts the advertiser would be unhappy with if reported.
Instead of that, the media seems to be delving more and more into that which they were willing to label as propaganda when coming from a foreign source.
Now the MSM has become that which richly deserved their derision for the use of propaganda as news in the past.
The priceless addition of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (the Tom Hanks surrogate) lambasting the NYT is the height of irony.
