Thursday, November 17, 2016

NYT Mea Culpa and Other Stuff

As if the world hasn't gotten crazy enough since Nov. 8, here are a few of my observations to discuss:

New York Times Mea Culpa (sort of):

In a Nov. 11 post-election Nov. 11 post-election letter to their readers/subscribers (who they have been shedding at an alarming rate), New York Times publisher/executive editor Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. published this:

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 the 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. 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 readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.


Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

But the New York Post, always looking for a way to stick to the Times, found that this one sentence had been scrubbed from the original letter when posted to all readers (paying or not) on their website on Nov. 13:
“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”
I know, you did a spit-take when reading that line, right? Considering that they have been all "Obama good/Republicans Bad" for 8 years and all "Trump Bad all the time" for this election cycle on their front pages and Op/Ed pages with scant reporting on Clinton issues like email, alleged Foundation/State Department co-mingling of assets and other issues. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, right?

When questioned by the NY Post as to why that particular sentence was scrubbed from the original letter, a spokesperson responded:

A Times spokeswoman acknowledged the missing sentence, but insisted it is “no great mystery.”

“The letter was originally drafted with our subscribers in mind,” the spokeswoman said.

She said the paper made the decision to run the letter on the homepage because “we thought an honest dialogue on the issues raised by this election with all of our readers was important.”

“Given how broad the audience for the letter would be in that context,” she noted, “we removed the line to avoid it being interpreted as defensive.”

Now this sounds like the NYT had a "come to Jesus" moment, and realized that perhaps their reporting may have been just a little slanted and they just wanted to reassure their readers/subscribers that they promised to do better. Well, consider this. Trump is going to be the President on January 20th. So when they continue to report the "All Trump Bad all the time" it will because that is now real "Journalism" and they will be speaking Truth To Power.

Sanctuary Cities Bruhaha:

Apparently, come Jan. 20th, Trump is going round up all of the immigrants in the country and ship 'em all back home. Well, honestly he might try, but I doubt that it is really that easy. For background, there are 32 cities who declared themselves "sanctuary cities" which means that they refuse to report illegals (yes, I will use that term) to the INS or hold them for possible deportation hearings. In an article published by NBC News

'Sanctuary Cities' Vow to Protect Immigrants From Trump Plan New York City's Bill de Blasio, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Seattle's Ed Murray have declared that they will "continue a longstanding policy of refusing to hold people charged with civil infractions for federal immigration officials." Many other mayors of these "sanctuary cities" have followed suit. Of course, this is all in flagrant violation of federal laws, but whatevs.

Of course, NYC Mayor de Blasio, who is running for re-election in 2017, went a step further and threatened to scrub the data connected to our uniquely NYC ID program to protect card holders from the Feds accessing this information. Two years ago, the city began issuing free New York City ID cards so that people who did not otherwise have any ID could obtain one. The ID cannot be used for any ID outside of the city like airport security. Mainly these IDs were for our illegal immigrants so they would be able to access city services that require some form of valid ID - finding housing, get utilities, open bank accounts, and other services. And incentive was added that includes free museum memberships and other perks. Now maybe I am wrong, but scrubbing all the data would render the NYC ID useless because there would be no way of verifying the information. But I have never known De Blasio to think more than one step behind, so he probably didn't think about that.

Please share your thoughts and/or feelings...

This week


Koshcat said...

Boulder, CO is considering becoming a sanctuary city. On the news tonight, a city council member stated "the city has a right not to enforce some laws."

No, they don't. We shall see if Trump will allow these sanctuary cities to continue. My guess is he will turn the AG on them and they will lose.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'll comment soon, but I want to add a thought to yesterday. The Dems are screaming about the electoral college, but before the election they were crowing about their "Electoral College lock." They didn't care about the popular vote then.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I was going to add that. Yeah, the Electoral College issue is one of those that the Dems only see in short-sighted, narrow terms. They can't imagine a time when that will work against them. According to the numbers, Clinton won the majority of her popular votes in two states -CA and NY. Now if and when California secedes from the Union then well, we know what happens next. Then the Repubs win the popular vote and the Dems will be screaming that we need to bring back the Electoral College 'cause it isn't fair 'cause [fill-in-the-blank]

They have also been screaming that we need to go back to the old way of choosing senators - Not by direct vote (democracy), but by appointment by the Gov./Leg. On that one they don't see that would have given the Repubs a supermajority in the Senate, but that's beside the point.

ArgentGale said...

I cant be the only one here who couldn't get through the letter without laughing even before the NY Post brought up their omission. I'm sure the Times will keep us informed about the rise in homeless, random offensive graffiti, and everything else they can do to convince everyone that we're heading for a Republican0-induced apocalypse soon enough.

On the Electoral College and appointment of senators part I actually heard the senator idea tossed around by some blogs on the right a few years ago when it looked like the Democrats were going to keep a lock on the Senate. My first thought was that it would be a nonstarter with the public, though I didn't pick up that particular phrase until I started reading here. The Electoral College still seems to have public support as well so I don't see either of those going anywhere any time soon but the more the Dems waste their time on sour grapes nonstarters the better the Republicans' chances!

- Daniel

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”

I did a spit take too when I saw that line. What I wonder is (1) is this just propaganda (most likely) or (2) does this person not actually understand how full of hate and bias they are? It's an interesting question I would love to have answered. Are liberals really that blind or is it just another in their long list of lies for public consumption?

On the Electoral College, this is loser speak. It's been a liberal pipe dream for decades because of all the votes they waste in California and New York. On the Senator thing, they think they can get states to go 50/50, but I doubt it.

On sanctuary cities, the term is a bit of a misnomer. All they are doing is telling their own police not to report people who are here illegally. It doesn't really stop ICE at all. Said differently, it's all for show and it gives leftists a smuggie (and talk radio something to whine about), but that's about it.

tryanmax said...

Bev, Andrew, the folks who are calling for an end to the Electoral Colkege system are effectively calling for the means to ignore middle America without political consequence.

tryanmax said...


Anthony said...

Maybe the NYT will follow the lead of Breitbart and start calling Trump daddy in order to woo his followers.

Also, the electoral college whining is silly. The electoral college didn't make Hillary the nominee.

Post a Comment