When I was younger, my father would - without fail - make a mug of tea and read the New York Times. Cover to cover, he loved it. Toward the end of his life, he called it "that rag" and refused to touch it.
It wasn't that his politics had changed. They were pretty much what they'd always been. It was that the NYT had drifted so far into advocacy, propaganda, and bias that reading it was worthless. It could no longer be trusted, so what was the point?
On the heels of the most recent election, the Grey Lady swears she has seen the error of her ways. The paper has assured its dwindling subscription base that it is 'rededicating' itself to the 'fundamental mission' of journalism. Many people took this to mean "that rag" was acknowledging its bias. That's not really the case, as you'll see if you read the entire letter it sent to its readers...(See Below)
Newt Gingrich has 7 uncomfortable questions for the 'newly redidicated' New York Times
If you read between the lines, it seems they're going to do exactly what they've always done because they think that's what journalism is. This isn't a "change of heart" as much as it's a doubling-down.
Still, just in case they’re actually interested in doing better (they aren't) Newt Gingrich has a list of seven questions for them. Their answers will help clarify their intentions. ...If they bother to reply.
Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinionsor pure speculation--such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?
Support Canada Free Press
Yeah. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response, and if you get one, it won't be one you like. The fact is: you don't question the Times. They tell you what to think.
Who do "the little people" think they are to demand answers? Why I never.
Gingrich asks, "If the answer to all of these questions is “no”--why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?"
This much easier to answer, and it can be done in five short words. "It's not, and you shouldn't"
