Sorry, this does not compute. I refer you to the Public Editor column a propos this issue, and to the the bulk of the reader comments to the effect that the Times has not demonstrated fairness in election coverage. Au contraire, bias and blindness to data (cf. Michael Moore's interview on today's "Morning Joe" on MSNBC) has been evident, with adjectives slanting headlines and "news" reportage. A column by James Hohmann in the Washington Post the other day describing "confirmation bias" is on point: the skew that results from over-valuing one's own prior conclusions. Put another way, the Times failed to exercise Bayes' Rule by not accepting and using updated data in the evolving assessment of obvious uncertainties about prospective voter behavior. You have a lot of listening to do. The assurances in your memo seem bland and breezy. I've been reading the Times for over sixty years, and I've never been so disappointed.
19
1. Could you do some reporting focused on the working class white voter in order to understand the mood of the country?
2. Could you refrain from using your newspaper to advocate for a particular candidate?
3. Could you make your op-ed columnists more intellectually diverse? Why should I read Paul Krugman every week when I know what he is going to say (free trade is win-win, Hillary is good, Trump is bad, jobs are not coming back because of automation, everyone should be college educated etc)
4. I remember how nytimes supported the Iraq war. Could you do some reporting on the consequences of that disaster? On Americans and Iraqis?
2. Could you refrain from using your newspaper to advocate for a particular candidate?
3. Could you make your op-ed columnists more intellectually diverse? Why should I read Paul Krugman every week when I know what he is going to say (free trade is win-win, Hillary is good, Trump is bad, jobs are not coming back because of automation, everyone should be college educated etc)
4. I remember how nytimes supported the Iraq war. Could you do some reporting on the consequences of that disaster? On Americans and Iraqis?
22
An anemic apology in the wake of anemic reporting. If you have given us reason to doubt the objectivity, veracity or diligence of your reporting then you owe us a much stronger apology than this.
24
First you told us you were abandoning objectivity. Then you made two disclosures which required objectivity -- the excerpts from Trump's tax returns and the allegations of harassment by two different women. Sometimes you report news and sometimes you make news. Because of these dual roles, you simply cannot ever abandon objectivity.
14
The Times' failure to report the disintegration of U.S. politics did not start with this election. Two related poisonous trends have been downplayed for years: the ratcheting concentration of wealth and power; and the urgent goal of the Republican Party to destroy anything, regardless of how sensible or productive, the Democrats attempt. This is what's going on in the U.S. today. Every day the press ignores it, makes it less likely we are to survive it.
15
I am as shocked as everyone to hear about that Trump has won the presidential election. I understand that many people are upset about Trump becoming president because of his statements on women, calling Mexicans rapists, wanting to ban Muslims, and his problems with certain groups of people. However, I do not agree that many people are upset and yelling at the New York Times because of this election. I do not understand that the articles were implying that Hillary Clinton had a sure fire win. Considering that the polls that the times posted and the article about her having a positive win. But, people fail to understand that Trump is in this election as the republican nominee. He still has a chance, even if it is slim, to win. The times did not say Hillary is going to totally win so any Clinton supporter should not even bother to vote. The New York Times should not have to apologize for the unexpected win of this election.
2
The New York times is one of the best newspapers. The NYT is made in NYC which, is a very liberal, democratic state. I am confused on why an apology is even necessary. It was not the publishers fault that the percentages were wrong. I think it is hard for us (New York) to see past our own little liberal bubble and look into the rest of racist America like some parts of the south and middle America. It was very unexpected and surprising that Trump is now the president of the USA. Trumps comments about Muslims make him islamophobic and racist and his comments about women make him misogynistic. What Pence says about the LGBTQ+ community makes him homophobic. A lot of us are scared for our lives because of these comments. The media and newspapers do not change the words Trump has said. This does not mean newspapers or the media have bias' or are more liberal, they are just stating facts.
3
You at the NY Times are not capable of being honest and forthright.
If I am looking for slanted opinion I will peruse your periodical and if I am looking for fact I must go elsewhere.
If I am looking for slanted opinion I will peruse your periodical and if I am looking for fact I must go elsewhere.
14
The New York Times should have been HONEST about Obama 8 years ago, WHY have they had little to ZERO coverage of how Wall Street and the military industrial complex which wants tension with Russia, China, Syria and so on, dictates our country's policy!?
2003-The New York Times parroted the Wall Street/Military Industrial Complex Bush/Cheney lies about WMD in Iraq, they were big cheer leaders for that war.
Notice how the New York Times also never strongly came out for Glass-Steagall either through their editorial board or through Op-Ed Wall Street controlled columnists such as Krugman!
The so called "journalists and columnists" of the NY Times are controlled tools of the destructive pro-war and anti-development (NO Glass-Steagall- No Nationalized bank, increase tensions with Syria, Russia and China) anti-American Wall Street elite policy.
2003-The New York Times parroted the Wall Street/Military Industrial Complex Bush/Cheney lies about WMD in Iraq, they were big cheer leaders for that war.
Notice how the New York Times also never strongly came out for Glass-Steagall either through their editorial board or through Op-Ed Wall Street controlled columnists such as Krugman!
The so called "journalists and columnists" of the NY Times are controlled tools of the destructive pro-war and anti-development (NO Glass-Steagall- No Nationalized bank, increase tensions with Syria, Russia and China) anti-American Wall Street elite policy.
7
Thank you so much. Please please please keep holding the Times's feet to the fire. Yes, the newspaper serves power. Liberal and conservative are mostly beside the point.
5
Simply put, we diminish our democracy when the media fail to provide fair and balanced political coverage.
When the front page and editorial page can no longer be distinguished from one another and the Times seemingly evolves into a media outpost for the Clinton campaign, there's a problem.
I never had a problem with scrutiny of Trump as it was merited. However, to give Hillary a free pass on so many serious issues--even as a Democrat, that was troubling if only because she so clearly came with her own set of flaws.
In the end, the Times should take a pass on the creativity angle and simply aim to provide fair and credible reporting and, in doing so, trust its readers and voters to come to an independent decision on the issues.
When the front page and editorial page can no longer be distinguished from one another and the Times seemingly evolves into a media outpost for the Clinton campaign, there's a problem.
I never had a problem with scrutiny of Trump as it was merited. However, to give Hillary a free pass on so many serious issues--even as a Democrat, that was troubling if only because she so clearly came with her own set of flaws.
In the end, the Times should take a pass on the creativity angle and simply aim to provide fair and credible reporting and, in doing so, trust its readers and voters to come to an independent decision on the issues.
15
I've been a times subscriber for 20 years -- and i was disgusted with the coverage -- and the result. So much so that this is the first article i have read since election night. I wanted to see what you had to offer. Like the rest of the coverage over the last year, it was meh.
15
The New York Times is a newspaper that has been widely recognized as a credible, reliable source of information for decades. However, in the aftermath of the unprecedented, rocky presidential election that recently came to a close, some readers have harbored doubts about the level of accuracy of the information presented by the Times. Specifically, the Times provided information during the election that suggested that Hillary Clinton had a significantly greater chance of winning the election than Trump did. Some believe this could have led some Hillary supporters to decide to not vote, as they might have thought she would win either way. However, it is not right to blame the New York Times entirely, or hold them accountable for voters choice. The information they provided was merely a prediction of what would happen - there was no telling what would actually happen in the end.
1
The New York Times has been a reliable and informative news source for years. It is important to keep in mind that the New York Times has always had a slightly liberal bias, however it is also important to remember that the polls predicting the outcome of the election were nothing more than that: predictions. It was extremely difficult for media and news outlets to remain unbiased throughout the time leading up to the election. I think that it is respectable of the Times to at least apologize for their mistake rather than brushing the whole thing aside. In addition I don't think it's fair to ride the New York Times off as an unreliable news source simply because of this incident. The Times has been a reliable source for years and there is no denying that it caters to a certain readership. If anything the Times will hopefully be more aware of their biases now and try to fix them.
1
Right now, Trump supporters all over the country are being attacked by liberals and democrats. Because of this, they are now turning on the media. According to many republicans, Trump has been unfairly made out to seem racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic in the media. This election has been heavily followed in the media due to how unusual and non-traditional it has been. However, it is impossible to spin a direct quote. Trump’s radical, extreme, and impulsive comments about women, Muslims and immigrants have caused outrage throughout the U.S., and the media hasn’t filtered anything he has said. This lack of filtration does not mean that media outlets have been bias. Closely monitoring immigration into the United States is already being done. Only a few hundred thousand immigrants enter the U.S every year, which is an incredibly low number. Illegal immigrants however, are a different issue. I do agree that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, he should be thrown in a U.S prison and cost our taxpayers money. However you’d have to be just about the dumbest fleeing immigrant in the world to commit a heinous crime while desperately avoiding law enforcement officials. Trump’s unfair portrayal of illegal immigrants is what makes him racist. His disrespectful comments towards women is what makes him misogynistic. His inappropriate suspicion of Muslims is what makes him Islamophobic. The media has done its job simply by covering it.
i dont really find it surprising that trump won because the way america is. this country feels that Hillary wouldn't be a good president because she is a female. there is 63 percent Caucasians, and 59 percent of them are republican, so they are going to vote for trump. its not very surprising that trump won because a majority of america feels that he gets straight to the point and will get things done and the other part is also racist and agrees with the things he is saying "Make America Great Again." Which i dont agree with i feel that line is a way of saying make america white again, i dont really agree with our president saying stuff like this because our president should be for everyone that lives in america, it is also not fair that he wants to kick the Mexicans and immigrants out which i also count racists. I dont agree with trump being president but i felt it coming, im out.
We were all shocked by the election that Donald Trump actually winning because during the upcoming of the election Hillary was the lead of all of the polls at that time.You are good at your jobs.No one other than Trump supporters thought he was going to win.We tried are best we voice our opinion wither we agree with it or not.This is s dramatic and complete plot of change. As journalist you are only doing your job and along with field of work it comes along with mistake and criticism.
The New York Times is a very trusted source of news. As a New Yorker I feel that it is the duty of this paper to share the most accurate news possible. With that being said I feel that the New York Times should have tried to incorporate the views of all people in their reporting and not just the views of the New York people in order to provide accurate predictions on the winner of the presidential election. Everyone was shocked by the results of the election because of the reporting that was done by journalists. I think that it was forgotten that everyone in this whole country was involved in electing the winner of this presidential election and evidently many people in the country did not have the same views as people in New York.
4
One of my youngest memories is watching my grandfather read the newspaper early in the morning, often with a cup of coffee at his elbow. Then my mother subscribed to the NYT and we started getting the paper at my apartment. My father would read me the articles on the train. Now, I read them myself when I'm going to school or during my lunch period. The New York Times is a valued source of information for me, a young woman growing up in a diverse and amazing city. I don't feel that we can condone it, despite the seemingly biased coverage. The outcome predicted in some of the articles was not a fact. In the end, it wasn't the media who is deciding the presidency. It's the voters.
Originally following the election I stood with the media, believing that sources such as this one were not wrong in their predictions, but that Trump's chances of winning were simply known to be significantly lower and that his victory was out of the blue. I now wonder if the larger issue was bias in the media, blinding me to the will of greater America. I do not want to be trapped in a media bubble that echoes only the same beliefs as the people I associate myself with--the way many Republicans do. Definitely in this election there were many disillusioned white, male voters that did not participate in polls and/or usually don't vote, who felt their voice was heard by Trump and voted in the election, so that could add to the miscalculations news sources made. Despite this, I'm now wary of bias in news sources I'm supposed to be able to trust.
1
This is called the "New York Times," New York aka a very democratic state. The Times clearly endorsed Hillary before even knowing anything about her campaign because she is a liberal like them. Clearly, the Times has been bias throughout the whole election due to their liberal views which is why they showed the Clinton campaign love and support while going against the Trump campaign. Keep in mind, there were and still are many closeted Trump supporters because if you say you agree with Trump or you support him, you're immediately attacked and shut down by passionate Clinton supporters and you're classified as a racist, sexist, homophobe. Obviously the New York Times' "nationwide" poll was a poll with many Clinton supporters as participants. Although Clinton was getting lots of positive feedback from many Americans, the election results show otherwise. Even though the New York Times is a very popular, reliable news source, it hasn't been throughout the Presidential Election and this is living proof.
3
I would just like to start by saying that The New York Times did nothing wrong. They did their jobs and provided news based off of obtained facts from a world-wide given survey. The NYT did not say that Hillary was DEFINITELY going to win, they gave her an 85% chance of winning which means that even though she MOST LIKELY would win, there’s also a chance that she wouldn’t. Anyone who remains upset at news media’s that gave Hillary the best chance of winning needs to grow up. It was your choice to rely solely on what you read (information wrong or not) and decide to weather you would get up and vote. Please stop blaming the news for providing you with the facts and allowing you to do what you want with what you learned
I think that the under-estimation of the large, bigoted, population of rural and middle America really shocked upper middle class urban Americans in this election. Donald Trump really exemplified the ideas much of the so-called "Silent Majority" holds. His extreme statements caused most of the media, even conservative media, not to take him seriously until 3:30 Wednesday morning. Most liberals, myself included, as well as the "liberal media" did not expect this outcome because they did not expect so many people to be bigots. It honestly is shocking that these types of views are sincerely held in 2016. The views that allowed Donald Trump to come into power are not views that most journalists (college educated people in mostly urban areas) hold. It is nearly impossible to understand why people would vote for a candidate that you are disgusted by. This implicit bias of the media lead to their audience's belief that Hillary Clinton had the election in the bag. In order to predict the results of future elections accurately, people with multiple views must analyze polls.
Being a journalist means making a few mistakes here and there, I disagree with those in the comments who are bashing this publisher and The New York Times, as if they could’ve done a much better job than the NYT’s themselves. Yes, it is smart to not trust the internet but it’s a way where we connect and try to understand each other. Of course getting the predictions wrong was/is a big error, but hopefully people can understand “it happens” and it could happen to you and anyone but it happened to the publisher, cut him some slack and The New York Times. To the New York Times, this whole phase of “I hate the New York Times” will pass, people are still going to buy your newspaper, and they will still read it at home or online. Understand people are mad because sadly their hopes got ruined, but it happens because somehow mine were too but that’s my opinion. All that could be done now, is either forgive and forget or cry and brag about it, let’s grow up people.
1
I am very disappointed by the results of the election. My candidate was not chosen, and I think that it was somewhat caused by the way that the media covered the information about the elections. Your polls showed that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning the election. The people who saw those, like me, probably believed that Clinton will win the election. Believing that she will win the election, people probably didn’t bother to go out and vote. Maybe, that’s one of the reasons why she lost the election. Your polls were really inaccurate. Maybe, if you didn’t post the poll results, then it would have made people go out and vote. I am only saying this, because NYT has a lot of subscribers, and loyal readers, so I think that your polls had an impact on the results of the election. Maybe, next time, don’t have these polls, so that the people will actually go out and vote, and you will be able to keep your loyal readers.
1
I would like to say that I am very disappointed by the results of the elections. It was stated by you people that Hillary was going to win but, she didn’t did she. You guys said that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning the election and was in the lead; you are the people to blame. Many people had their hopes up and did not bother to vote knowing that trump was losing anyways, because of that Hillary lost. If the fake poll results were never posted people would have participated in helping to choose a better president and making this country great by, voting. People are making the situation worse by protesting think that would make a difference. All I can say is next time you publish something online; make sure it is accurate
I find this to be a little surprising that Trump had overcome Hillary but I do not believe it was any of the Time's fault that it came out to Trump in the end. It was a close battle where the whole country was split 50/50 between either canidate and the survey shows only the ones whole spoke out. There was many quite Trump supporters that kept it to themselves to aviod any lashing from the public eye. But in the end this election came down to Trump through a fair democratic system and we have to accept that Trump had won the election and hope for what he has to offer. As Obama had said "The sun will rise in the morning." This is not the end for America, people said "The world will end!" way back in 2012 when Obama was elected rather Romney. I hope people will come to compromise what has happened and forgive the Time's over what they have surveyed becuase this was no ordinary election to engage the whole country, not in two sides aginst each other but one country that cares about the future of America.
I disagree with the discrediting of the Times based on this statistical mishap. Never was it promised that Clinton would win, and in an election where Trump went from little to no chance of winning to becoming the republican nominee, no thoughtful reader should have blindly accepted the poll to be accurate. Also, the poll gave trump a 15% chance of winning. Not zero.
1
I don't really find it surprising that trump won because the way america is. This country feels that Hillary wouldn't be a good president because she is a female. there is 63 percent Caucasians, and 59 percent of them are republican, so they are going to vote for trump. Its not very surprising that trump won because a majority of america feels he gets straight to the point and will get things done and the other part is also racist and agrees with the things he is saying "Make America Great Again." By the way im not a trump supporter, im out.
I think the mistake the media made was to not post in banner headlines the lies that were told on a daily basis. By not exposing the truth, the news media let us down. If you had to introduce a whole new section of the paper dedicated to fact checking, I would be fine with that. I consider politics more important than sports so you could make that trade.
I am educated white female (physician) who watched all the election coverage bias for months. So sad you found out so late. You and the rest of the media botched it big time and you're too ignorant to understand why!
We, the quiet, highly educated, were the first to know that nothing in the media can be trusted.
Good luck in your next career.
We, the quiet, highly educated, were the first to know that nothing in the media can be trusted.
Good luck in your next career.
9
Nice to meet you, educated white female.
*i am an educated white female
I've been a subscriber for many decades but stopped reading your political coverage many months ago as it was blatantly biased.. one suggestion, boot your reporters out of the upper west side and have them live in Trump country (Cleveland maybe) for 6 months.. rent them an average house and a Chevy and give them a per diem that reflects the average local income... then maybe you'll understand why this election was settled as it was..
6
Surely almost all of us already understand this. Bernie Sanders most certainly did, and does.
1
Sulzberger and Baquet need to resign.
4
This falls far short of the apology you owe your readers and all voters. It is hard to overstate the complete neglect of reporting duties, misinformation and highly biased reporting (never mind the inane editorializing, often masquerading as news) your readership was subjected to throughout the election season.
5
What seems to be disturbing the anti-Trumpists most is the cognitive dissonance (and what it portends)—an incoherent carnival barker, vulgarian and ignoramus (they say), who managed to outwit, expose and dethrone the "intelligentsia" and Clinto-klepto-plutocracy, in one fell swoop and under budget, to pull off the most brilliant political upset and realignment in modern American history.
Their fear may have more to do with efficacy than idiocy…
I predict the Trump presidency will be a great one.
Trump's mindset is one of a builder with big ideas, pragmatic—not ideological, empirical—not academic, who identifies and realizes hidden potential.
Look for revitalized and reimagined inner cities, inventive infrastructure, and a safer, wealthier America and world…A Pax Americana.
Their fear may have more to do with efficacy than idiocy…
I predict the Trump presidency will be a great one.
Trump's mindset is one of a builder with big ideas, pragmatic—not ideological, empirical—not academic, who identifies and realizes hidden potential.
Look for revitalized and reimagined inner cities, inventive infrastructure, and a safer, wealthier America and world…A Pax Americana.
4
Of course, you're correct about the Clintons. That does not make you right about Trump. Far from it.
Trump is small-minded and anti-intellectual. Look for fascism, since it's already here. He is indeed not an ideologue, but that does not mean he operates outside ideology. Far, far from it.
Trump is small-minded and anti-intellectual. Look for fascism, since it's already here. He is indeed not an ideologue, but that does not mean he operates outside ideology. Far, far from it.
Additionally, Marian, your comment here does liberals, progressives and the few remaining leftist radicals and community-minded anarchists a great service, encapsulating how it could be that a Trump has just been elected president even though he is indeed a spectacular pig.
Your comment represents what so many believe. I will copy and disseminate it. Thank you. And I wish you well as the empire deteriorates, since that is how the election of a Trump fits historically. There will be no "safer, wealthier America and world…A Pax Americana." Mass incarceration, more war (trade and otherwise), much more polarization and hate, non-whites and women suffering and lashing out, a further descent into our new Gilded Age, and on and on and on.
We live in an even more terrifying world now. Clintonism capitulated to Reaganism, the political left was finally completely vanquished, giving over completely to a cultural one, and the rest, as they say, is history. We cannot escape history, and now we will pay the price.
Your comment represents what so many believe. I will copy and disseminate it. Thank you. And I wish you well as the empire deteriorates, since that is how the election of a Trump fits historically. There will be no "safer, wealthier America and world…A Pax Americana." Mass incarceration, more war (trade and otherwise), much more polarization and hate, non-whites and women suffering and lashing out, a further descent into our new Gilded Age, and on and on and on.
We live in an even more terrifying world now. Clintonism capitulated to Reaganism, the political left was finally completely vanquished, giving over completely to a cultural one, and the rest, as they say, is history. We cannot escape history, and now we will pay the price.
we need more investigative journalism and reporting. readers are confusing opinion pieces as fact. i think it important to make it more clear the difference between opinion pieces and fact. much more who, what, where, how, why, less opinion.
3
Your mea culpa has a hollow ring when you open by calling the results of the election "unexpected."
Many of us who were paying attention saw it coming. For one example, White House Watch, in the days before the vote, noted that among the voters who had decided Trump led 53% to 43%. That was significant. And your paper never noticed it.
Unexpected to you does not mean unexpected to everyone.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Many of us who were paying attention saw it coming. For one example, White House Watch, in the days before the vote, noted that among the voters who had decided Trump led 53% to 43%. That was significant. And your paper never noticed it.
Unexpected to you does not mean unexpected to everyone.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
The way you supported HRC so blindly, not holding her horrible decisions to account, or seeking out NEWS such as what it was she got paid to speak about, while making millions for her own personal coffers, is shameful and despicable.
Also, try getting out of your bubble. People are suffering out there, as Senator Sanders articulated over and over. His "we the people" ideas are what would actually make this country great again, and instead, look what we have. Because of the naked bias perpetrated by the NYT, you had a hand in disenfranchising folks correctly skeptical of an HRC presidency, thus contributing to pushing them to Trump's side, because his message was one of us against the world.
You and HRC and your selfish "elite" (i.e., rich creeps) brethern are "the world" and we regular folk looking for fair reporting are the "us". You took sides. That stinks. You're supposed to respect your readers and your own influence. You blew it!
I personally would have preferred Senator Sanders, a man for the people, an honest and humble statesman; but because of the likes of the mainstream media (YOU!), now more dangerous (as proven by the result you had a hand in) than the right wing looney tune outlets, we're stuck with a know nothing demagogue.
Also, try getting out of your bubble. People are suffering out there, as Senator Sanders articulated over and over. His "we the people" ideas are what would actually make this country great again, and instead, look what we have. Because of the naked bias perpetrated by the NYT, you had a hand in disenfranchising folks correctly skeptical of an HRC presidency, thus contributing to pushing them to Trump's side, because his message was one of us against the world.
You and HRC and your selfish "elite" (i.e., rich creeps) brethern are "the world" and we regular folk looking for fair reporting are the "us". You took sides. That stinks. You're supposed to respect your readers and your own influence. You blew it!
I personally would have preferred Senator Sanders, a man for the people, an honest and humble statesman; but because of the likes of the mainstream media (YOU!), now more dangerous (as proven by the result you had a hand in) than the right wing looney tune outlets, we're stuck with a know nothing demagogue.
11
I'm counting on you, NY Times, to help continuously open our eyes to the circus that has become our government-elect. The stark contrast from our mannered, eloquent, learned First Couple leaving the White House, makes this even more maddening. Please keep fighting the fight.... a loyal subscriber.
Please know this comes from a person who has loathed Donald Trump and his ilk for many decades:
It appears that you have missed one of the major lessons of this election and the last eight years or so. Mannered, eloquent and learned don't cut it when the message from such types is "stay the course" during a non-recovery from a terrible global recession.
They're rich and above the fray, as are the Clintons. Of course, so is Trump. Therein lies...fascism.
It appears that you have missed one of the major lessons of this election and the last eight years or so. Mannered, eloquent and learned don't cut it when the message from such types is "stay the course" during a non-recovery from a terrible global recession.
They're rich and above the fray, as are the Clintons. Of course, so is Trump. Therein lies...fascism.
I feel that you folks at NYT didn't know what you were doing covering this past election. When I say you, I mean most of the centerish journalist who basically saved Trump advertising money by frontpaging every insane and profane act he did. By doing so, you were playing into the hands of Steve Bannon and his cohorts. Further, every time any news that was leaked about Clinton's emails, the same picture appeared on the front page of Clinton, dressed in black with dark sunglasses checking her cell phone. She was made to look like the devil. So, I say that you folks, WashPost included, deserve a truck load of congratulations (I was thinking of something else) for giving the election to Mr.Trump. You did it, and if you have conducted an honest post mortem retrospective examination of your reporting, you will agree with me. Good Job!
4
The most honest article printed by the NYT in this election cycle was the front page editorial by "mediator" Jim Rutenberg on August 7, 2016, urging journalists to throw prior standards overboard because they had an obligation to expose Trump to insure that he was defeated. That was obviously your policy.
You tried. You failed. "Bigly." You didn't provide your readers with accurate coverage of the election, nor properly inform them of Sen. Clinton's serious vulnerabilities, nor the currents in middle America that lead to Trump's surprising upset victory.
You haven't learned. Articles about Trump since the election still include opinionated references to his character. Today's headlines emphasize your judgments of his appointment of Bannon. Stop it.
I will continue to subscribe. Grudgingly. The rest of your paper is well written and informative, although often laughingly parochial, but I enjoy it. But I have no faith in your national political coverage.
You tried. You failed. "Bigly." You didn't provide your readers with accurate coverage of the election, nor properly inform them of Sen. Clinton's serious vulnerabilities, nor the currents in middle America that lead to Trump's surprising upset victory.
You haven't learned. Articles about Trump since the election still include opinionated references to his character. Today's headlines emphasize your judgments of his appointment of Bannon. Stop it.
I will continue to subscribe. Grudgingly. The rest of your paper is well written and informative, although often laughingly parochial, but I enjoy it. But I have no faith in your national political coverage.
7
If the Editorial Board of the NY Times is actually serious about rededicating the NY Times to the fundamental mission - that of reporting America and the world honestly - may this reader make a suggestion. When a major issue is being discussed by the now Republican lead Congress - that of dismantling the Medicare program which has worked for decades to provide a comfort zone of insurance coverage for millions of citizens in this country, and replacing it will a non program that will make insurance for those millions unworkable as well as unattainable - then get to work NY Times. Report on this with all of the facts and figures and the truth - not the sound bites of Paul Ryan but the actual truth. Go to real people and report on how they will be affected and their actual lives will be altered for the negative - and don't bury this inside of the paper. Put this very important story on the front page. The Times along with the majority of other reporting outlets completely lost touch with the public because you were all too busy pandering to the celebrity atmosphere otherwise known as the presidential election. Well, how about getting back to what you should be doing and remember that without a free press who writes honestly, accurately and objectively with the facts and figures, this country is no better than a banana republic.
6
Not a banana republic. A failed large state. And it has already happened. The so-called free press has ably facilitated it by failing to name, and report the ugly details of, structural class and power. And by failing to clearly name and detail how the right has compromised and conquered narrative and the electoral process, even as it does not represent any majority of people and their values and ethics.
This has been in process for many decades. The election of Trump is the result.
This has been in process for many decades. The election of Trump is the result.
It was not a failure of your reporting that made many readers doubt the Times's credibility, but that ill-conceived, misleading and, as results proved, meaningless Daily Election Forecast which as late as Friday, Nov. 4, showed an 84% 'likelihood' that Clinton would win. Readers would have been much better served if rather than that obscurely formulated bit of sabremetrics, you had published specific polls like Quinnipiac's Presidential Swing States Poll which painted a much more dire picture of Clinton's chances. Sadly, next time is too late, the damage is done. That said, in the face of tanking ad revenues, shrinking budgets and bitter denunciations from right and left, your staff does an heroic job and please thank them for that. I plan to by continuing my subscription and encouraging all who share the believe that objective journalism is an ideal worth striving for, to do the same.
3
Subscribe to The Guardian
4
The Guardian is mostly more myopic, liberal tripe. Liberalism is dead, thank goodness. Decide on a radicalism to adopt and get to thinking and acting.
Thanks for the letter and the good effort. It's appreciated.
You are receiving a lot of criticism, much of unwarranted. My own constructive rebuttal to you starts and ends with this: you need a diversity of voices in your pages.
I know you *think* you have that, but to be blunt, you absolutely do not.
Nowhere is this better exemplified that in the voices of your featured columnists who all seem to have graduated from the same schools and drawn from the same array of degrees. Some of them are brilliant writers with unique insights: Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Frank Bruini. Others, though, lack the sort of introspection and humility to see past their own biases. In particular, your female bench is weak, sorry to say and where are the Latinas, Muslims etc?
Perhaps you should do something I have long imagined....why don't you on occasion as your friendly neighborhood commenters, ahem the "me's" of this world, to submit some pieces based on the comments that resonate most? It might take a little extra elbow grease to polish up the writing, but you might end up with something sorely lacking from your big stage: authentic and unique voices.
Speaking for myself, I am someone I never see represented on your page: a (Latina) stay-at-home. My demographic category might be narrow, but on occasion, I might have something unique to say.
Call me, we'll talk.
:-)
PS.....and for the love of God, can you please add an "Edit" button?
You are receiving a lot of criticism, much of unwarranted. My own constructive rebuttal to you starts and ends with this: you need a diversity of voices in your pages.
I know you *think* you have that, but to be blunt, you absolutely do not.
Nowhere is this better exemplified that in the voices of your featured columnists who all seem to have graduated from the same schools and drawn from the same array of degrees. Some of them are brilliant writers with unique insights: Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Frank Bruini. Others, though, lack the sort of introspection and humility to see past their own biases. In particular, your female bench is weak, sorry to say and where are the Latinas, Muslims etc?
Perhaps you should do something I have long imagined....why don't you on occasion as your friendly neighborhood commenters, ahem the "me's" of this world, to submit some pieces based on the comments that resonate most? It might take a little extra elbow grease to polish up the writing, but you might end up with something sorely lacking from your big stage: authentic and unique voices.
Speaking for myself, I am someone I never see represented on your page: a (Latina) stay-at-home. My demographic category might be narrow, but on occasion, I might have something unique to say.
Call me, we'll talk.
:-)
PS.....and for the love of God, can you please add an "Edit" button?
6
I'd love to edit my post too I made a big grammar mistake...
Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Frank Bruni? Brilliant? Unique insights?
Begging you and anyone else who believes that to reconsider in light of recent events. These people are crusaders for the ongoing normalization of capital's power and its awful consequences, almost no matter what they are. They have failed you. Spectacularly.
Begging you and anyone else who believes that to reconsider in light of recent events. These people are crusaders for the ongoing normalization of capital's power and its awful consequences, almost no matter what they are. They have failed you. Spectacularly.
1
I love my NY Times, but I'm laughing right now. "...and did what it has done for nearly two years -- cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity." I can agree with that; it took both to consistently come up with that kind of bias; not just basis either -- director, camera, scriptwriter even through the editorial page. I'll keep reading you, because well, I love the NYT. But it would be nice to see some of those journalistic fundamentals showing up in your political reporting--every now and again anyway. :)
4
Dear Arthur and Dean, I'm more than a little disappointed in the NYT, you not only got the news wrong before the election but you were too weak in standing up against the false news that was being spread by others. I believe that standing up for what is fair in the world is also your job. So I will continue to read the NYT but with a grain of salt, knowing that you can get it wrong.
Thanks, Marc
Thanks, Marc
3
Two stories you must follow: Trump and his staff's ties to Russia; voting irregularities and GOP tactics to rig votes in swing states.
5
Thank you NYT! Grateful and appreciative for your reporting.
What does this letter even supposed to say? I kept waiting for an apology (or at least an explanation). Instead, this boils down to "We need you, readers, so please remain loyal to us." This, preceded by the boasting about the newsroom's agility, is not what I hoped to find here. I am not interested in your reporters' "creativity," but I depend on their ACCURACY. Leave creativity to fiction writers and editorializing to the editorial staff. Don't let us down again.
10
"thank you for that loyalty"..How can you expect loyal after the fiasco of your coverage of past 16 months, and your dismal reporting of what was happening among the voters of America.
7
On May 4 you had HRC beating DJT 347-191.
Oof.
Oof.
3
How about this: start doing something radical like, oh, reporting on the news instead of prognosticating. Hire some editors who send back any story that contains the words COULD, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, POTENTIALLY.
Stick to saying what has actually happened and eschew the inane stories on what could possibly potentially maybe perhaps happen. Then you will be a newspaper again.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Stick to saying what has actually happened and eschew the inane stories on what could possibly potentially maybe perhaps happen. Then you will be a newspaper again.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
9
So why don't you tell it straight ? Today your headline is about Bannon being a hard line pick. He is a white supremacist. Say that. Headline should say TRUMP PICKS WHITE SUPREMACIST.
11
I read the online version everyday. I have to agree with many of the comments that say there's almost no distinction between "news" articles and "opinions". Here's what I'd like to see: the first page of the online version has three large buttons - NEWS. OPINION. ENTERTAINMENT (a.k.a. everything else). Make sure that the content in each section is only that. Invest heavily in the NEWS resources. Show that you understand that while the name of the paper is the New York Times it doesn't mean that you are the hometown Gazette. You are THE NY TIMES for god sakes. An internationally acclaimed "newspaper of record". Act like it! I have ZERO interest in people putting love locks on the Brooklyn Bridge. Hire more journalists and less society page "reporters". I enjoy the hard copy NYT on Sunday mornings in all its splendor, but Monday through Saturday I want the NEWS first, the way you guys used to do it.
5
"I have ZERO interest in people putting love locks on the Brooklyn Bridge."
Very funny, and Very True for me too.
Very funny, and Very True for me too.
Mia culpa, mia culpa, mia maxima culpa. You did not underestimate Trump's support. You overestimated your influence to generate a Clinton victory. You are not as left as Fox is right, but it's close.
3
Shame on you. Your news coverage continues to be biased with vitriolic comments. Some of the worst journalism I have seen in years. The man hasn't even taken office yet. Quit stoking fear.
6
"The man" has been alive for over 70 years, and we have ample evidence of his character, his behaviors, and his effects on those who trust him. There is certainly reason for fear.
10
You are both right.
1
Sirs - "without fear or favor"? In my opinion, too many times your reporting and your headlines over-inflated the supposed importance of the Clinton e-mail stories, which helped reinforce the idea that she was "crooked Hillary" and helped lead to Trump's win. Where is your honest examination of this slant? And "sheer unconventionality"?? Talk about soft pedaling racism and sexism.
9
Dear Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Baquet: One thing the NYTimes did better than anyone was election night reporting of the numbers and the background and statistics of each state. While the networks were presenting their opinions, numbers and facts were available on your website, presented in a fashion that even novice election watchers could grasp the inevitable results. You were quite clear that you predicted an 84% Clinton victory and throughout the night as the results came in, you showed with numbers what the results were, until around 2:30 am EST when you showed Trump the >95% winner. No one came close to your deep background work at the local level to show what a state like Pennsylvania was ultimately going to show (Trump win) when all the votes were in, based on statistics not predictions.
Good job there!
Good job there!
1
Quoting from the article "signed" by both the publisher and the executive director
"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"
is very different from the quote you can look at from the letter signed only by the publisher, here http://www.nytco.com/arthur-sulzberger-jr-s-note-to-staff-of-the-new-yor...
"But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias. We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly"
And that's probably the only explanation to the conundrum that viewing both articles arises, that is mr. Sulzberger wants the NYT to cover the new adminstration-to-be fairly, while the executive director mr. Baquet wants the NYT to cover it "the same".. of what? Since this is the first mr. Baquet had as executive director, and since it was very very different form how the nyt covered the 2012 elections, one can only assume that he is referring to the same "tone" the NYT used so far for the campaign and the primaries, which means with the increasing prospective of having a political coming-out of the NYT on the far left and not anymore a generalistic journal.
You can see that in articles about how mr. Trump had to fill 4k posts ( and mrs. Clinton would have not?! ), the clintonites' resistance post-debacle, and how even mr. Sulzberger has written "the NYT was funded as a watchdog". I guess he bumped into the line only after election
"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"
is very different from the quote you can look at from the letter signed only by the publisher, here http://www.nytco.com/arthur-sulzberger-jr-s-note-to-staff-of-the-new-yor...
"But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias. We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly"
And that's probably the only explanation to the conundrum that viewing both articles arises, that is mr. Sulzberger wants the NYT to cover the new adminstration-to-be fairly, while the executive director mr. Baquet wants the NYT to cover it "the same".. of what? Since this is the first mr. Baquet had as executive director, and since it was very very different form how the nyt covered the 2012 elections, one can only assume that he is referring to the same "tone" the NYT used so far for the campaign and the primaries, which means with the increasing prospective of having a political coming-out of the NYT on the far left and not anymore a generalistic journal.
You can see that in articles about how mr. Trump had to fill 4k posts ( and mrs. Clinton would have not?! ), the clintonites' resistance post-debacle, and how even mr. Sulzberger has written "the NYT was funded as a watchdog". I guess he bumped into the line only after election
2
This comment evidences a complete misunderstanding not only of the ruse that is "fair and balanced journalism" is, but also the very notion of left and right in politics.
The New York Times is not now, nor has it ever been, on the far left. The term "far left" has actual meaning, and the Times doesn't come close.
"Balance" in journalism is a joke. Ideology pervades in even a simple declarative sentence.
Please get a clue. Thanks.
The New York Times is not now, nor has it ever been, on the far left. The term "far left" has actual meaning, and the Times doesn't come close.
"Balance" in journalism is a joke. Ideology pervades in even a simple declarative sentence.
Please get a clue. Thanks.
1
You should start with replacing Blow, Krugman, Freidman and Dowd. They set the tone for the entire newsroom. Erect a "Chinese wall" between the journalists and reporters, like in a wall street firm between the Investment Bankers and the Traders.
4
It may be that the only stable view I had for more than 48 hours was NYTimes columnists and up to minute reporting both for local and world coverage. Opinion is reliably studied and comments from readers keeps us grounded. Thank you for excellence.
2
It is not your fault that you missed the story, but should consider spending less time in the echo chamber of the east coast elite and creating snazzy summaries and analysis of others work. Get out of your gilded cage and go into the field of America.
2
NYT seems to be apologizing to Hillary supporter readers for missing the support for Trump, giving a false sense security to Hillary's voters, therefore keeping many of those voters from the polls - hence the result which they feel they are complicit in.
NYT is still intentionally oblivious to the other half and is basically just "sorry" that it could not pick the winner.
NYT is still intentionally oblivious to the other half and is basically just "sorry" that it could not pick the winner.
1
This letter is WAY too self-congratulatory. You gave Bernie Sanders much less coverage than he deserved, and what there was wasn't fair. The amount of attention you gave to that idiotic email business was ridiculous.
Worse, perhaps, was the low ratio of attention given to issues versus personalities. You clearly didn't like Trump, don't you see that a good, and actually fair, way to expose him was to concentrate intently on his actual economic proposals, and explain the low likelihood of their working?
And had you delved into the economic situation of middle income Americans and listened to some of them explain why they (legitimately, IMHO) feel abandoned by the mainstream of both parties, you would understand the source of Sanders's and some of Trump's support. But, I suppose if you did that, you might find your support for the corporate candidate less appealing -- she didn't have practical proposals for the rust belt, either -- and I guess you wouldn't want that to happen.
Worse, perhaps, was the low ratio of attention given to issues versus personalities. You clearly didn't like Trump, don't you see that a good, and actually fair, way to expose him was to concentrate intently on his actual economic proposals, and explain the low likelihood of their working?
And had you delved into the economic situation of middle income Americans and listened to some of them explain why they (legitimately, IMHO) feel abandoned by the mainstream of both parties, you would understand the source of Sanders's and some of Trump's support. But, I suppose if you did that, you might find your support for the corporate candidate less appealing -- she didn't have practical proposals for the rust belt, either -- and I guess you wouldn't want that to happen.
4
How you reported the election and campaign is only one of the many problems that needs addressing at the NY Times. A major soul-searching needs to be done at the paper of choice.
2
Pride with no mea culpa cometh before a fall.
2
I am a life long reader of the Times. Always a good paper. But, need to make some changes, post haste. You need, first, open up robust mini HQ in Texas, with TX content, Charlotte NC, Tulsa OK, and a few others. I live in the western part of NC and when I travel around, or when I visit the cousin of my wife, a Pastor, feeding the many, and I mean many, people in an area with factories shuttered, then I know, and knew back then, that the Democrats were in for a shelling, a well deserved one I add. I voted for Hillary but Trump gets it. Shame on the D party, totally.
6
I have admired and relied upon the Times for many years, and I supported Hilary Clinton. But your exceptionally biased coverage of the run up to the election went against everything I believe journalism should do. We need new editorial leadership at the Times and the time is now, before this venerable news source loses any more credibility. I believe the Times can get back on track but its publisher must make some course corrections.
2
To Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., and Dean Baquet,
This letter is one I hoped, as a reader, you would write. I hope most sincerely you will be tracking and reporting on all the changes happening, and inform us of what you are doing to provide better, more honest, news and stories that represent all perspectives. We are counting on you and we need you more than ever.
I am sticking with my New York Times subscription for digital and home delivery, because I believe in supporting the accurate and quality work of dependable and honest journalists. We must, above all, preserve our right to write, to speak and to form our own opinions based on our individual assimilation of all we read, watch and discuss as Americans. May something good and strong and sustainable come out of the past two years and the next four. I don't know how we will make it through, so please help us to know.
This letter is one I hoped, as a reader, you would write. I hope most sincerely you will be tracking and reporting on all the changes happening, and inform us of what you are doing to provide better, more honest, news and stories that represent all perspectives. We are counting on you and we need you more than ever.
I am sticking with my New York Times subscription for digital and home delivery, because I believe in supporting the accurate and quality work of dependable and honest journalists. We must, above all, preserve our right to write, to speak and to form our own opinions based on our individual assimilation of all we read, watch and discuss as Americans. May something good and strong and sustainable come out of the past two years and the next four. I don't know how we will make it through, so please help us to know.
4
You coverage of the election was biased and flawed from the beginning. You relentlessly promoted Hillary Clinton, willfully ignored Bernie Sanders, and were simply blind to the ascendance of Trump. This "mea culpa" is a joke. I am out.
6
Allow me to clarify my comment: the NYT relentlessly hyped Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season, anointing Sanders as the also-running, then relegated Clinton to also-running status during the general election, gifting Trump with extensive coverage, ignoring the fact that most readers scan only headlines.
3
If you want to be a national newspaper you have to get people out on the ground throughout the nation. I drove across the country this summer and Trump signs were everywhere. That gave me my first hint. And please get rid of the pollsters who handicap the election based on obscure algorithms. Take that pollster money and hire stringers throughout the country.
6
Wow--talk about spin!!! The Times, which had relentlessly bashed Donald Trump since summer 2015 when he first announced his presidential candidacy up to his victory over Hillary Clinton, is now reduced to issuing hasty apologies to its loyal readers. This "apology" to Times readers is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at doing major damage control in trying to explain away the biggest upset in modern presidential history. It will take years before the Times can fully regain the trust of its reader.
1
I appreciate the principle behind this letter, but I think it was a mistake to publish it. An internal rededication would have been sufficient for those of us who respect the Times and realize its importance to us all. But to put this out publicly gives people like Trump and his henchmen a tool that they can use to beat you over the head until you are a bloody mess. From them, you will never hear the end of this letter. It's going to continue haunting you for a long time.
2
The NY Times' prognosticating of the election outcome day after day was not reporting, but it was certainly one of the reasons for this election's outcome. Stick with what you were founded to do- reporting events in an fair and unbiased
way. Creativity in newspaper journalism is a recipe for disaster, a disservice to readers and an abdication of responsibility.
way. Creativity in newspaper journalism is a recipe for disaster, a disservice to readers and an abdication of responsibility.
3
But right off, the Times is running slanted articles hinting subtly that the Trump years were going to be perhaps difficult for this or that group, that the supreme court was going to be a disaster, that the banks were going to ruin, and so on. The Timed did just about everything it could to undermine Trump's campaign with front page articles every day about his business failures, his policies and his ties to the world's bad guys. So now, with a mouth full of crow, the Times realizes it got it dead wrong and is going to go back to fair reporting, but already is criticizing and maligning his cabinet and administrative picks. Its no wonder fewer and fewer folks read the paper.
2
Trump's administration will be relentlessly scrutinized, as it should be. It is already a very ugly manifestation of Trump in both form and content. Read widely and you will see that. Journalists are reporting that longtime conservatives are repulsed and frightened.
It's called fascism, and it must be named and reported on as it transpires.
It's called fascism, and it must be named and reported on as it transpires.
You "aim to rededicate" the paper to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. Well, then. First, quit mixing entertainment into political stories. Who cares about Trump's butler at Mar a Lago? You did. Front page. If you are now going to seek out the forces and strains in America which drove this divisive election you might want to take a look at those millions of people who flocked to Bernie Sanders. Hardly a word from you on that. Six months on emails and fluff on Trump until you got alarmed he was for real. Some courses in what is false equivalency might be a good start for all your political reporters. Frankly, I think your coverage was pathetic. I urge all readers who want good in depth and fair reporting to move over to the Washington Post.
5
Please keep the heat on our new administration. We are relying on you to keep us informed and help maintain democracy and a free press. I feel an obligation to pay for the NYT for these reasons. You weren't the only ones who didn't see a Trump victory. Personally, I think we underestimated the racism and sexism of the electorate. I know that's not popular to say right now, but in time, it will come to be seen as fact. The country elected a man who bragged about violating women because he promised to block immigration. He obliterated a female candidate primarily based upon her gender. It may be too soon to see this clearly, but these are hard truths. Sure the white middle doesn't feel well-off, but who does? People vote on emotion! Anyone who really thinks Donald Trump is going to make any new jobs is truly a fool. God help us all.
3
You blew it when you ignored Bernie and then again when you dismissed Trump. This is a tremendous news source, perhaps the finest in the English language, and you fell down. The editorial board, writers, and strategists need to reassess the American political landscape and do what's necessary to move us back in the direction that promotes a welcome atmosphere for all our citizens. We can't tolerate the racism, however. I suspect Americans can become more empathic with regard to joblessness in the red states if there wasn't such a strong correlation with the racism.
3
In the 50s - 60s your paper did report the news without much editorial bias.
No more.
The NYT is one big liberal editorial. It is shameful to have this paper of record become a shill for liberal propagandists.
I subscribe because there are still some useful things to read but they have nothing to do with the news as such.
No more.
The NYT is one big liberal editorial. It is shameful to have this paper of record become a shill for liberal propagandists.
I subscribe because there are still some useful things to read but they have nothing to do with the news as such.
3
The paper of record is, and has always been, a shill for structural class and power. Liberal and conservative is almost beside the point. Culturally liberal, sure.
We hope this letter signifies a return to a legitimate news organization. The Times has descended into a biased, slanted and unreliable mouth piece for the rabid left. Your perverted and biased reporting is in some way responsible for the election night debacle.
A significant change in course is welcome.
A significant change in course is welcome.
1
I will read and make my own evaluation about your "rededication." The fact that you let me, all of your readers, down so miserably may be irredeemable. Has the old grey lady finally kicked the bucket?
2
How is it that the New York Times, with all its resources and brain trust, couldn't remotely see what Michael Moore (a guy w a baseball cap and a camera) saw back in July?: "He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November." A month later, in August, the NY Times was reporting on what a potential Clinton landslide would look like: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/upshot/what-a-clinton-landslide-map-wo....
7
As long as your paper persists in its infantile game of referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants", and similar disingenuous euphemisms employed solely to advance a political cause, it brings no fairness and no true scrutiny to the issues it purports to cover.
I am going to shop around and see if the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, or the BBC can fill the role that the New York Times has so disgracefully abandoned: reliably informing its readers.
I am going to shop around and see if the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, or the BBC can fill the role that the New York Times has so disgracefully abandoned: reliably informing its readers.
2
The NY Times has a mission. It's to sell advertising and cut expenses as practicable to maximize profits/reduce losses. All else revolves around that premise. It's their fiduciary responsibility.
It does not matter how long you have been a subscriber. It doesn't matter that your grandfather taught you to read it. You are a number. The number is 1.
"All The news that's fit to print"
Quaint.
It does not matter how long you have been a subscriber. It doesn't matter that your grandfather taught you to read it. You are a number. The number is 1.
"All The news that's fit to print"
Quaint.
3
I have been disappointed in the NYT coverage throughout this election cycle. Until the general election your coverage of Donald Trump was more celebrity coverage and "look at his outrageous behavior" rather than investigative. Although in the last couple of months before the election you did run several excellent pieces. I can't help but wonder if some of that information had been available much earlier it might have helped derail his candidacy before it gathered the steam it did.
During the Democratic primary, there was clear bias in many articles I read. On more than one occasion I found myself taken aback at the blatant bias and then found later found the article had been edited to tone it down without any indication that it had been changed. These experiences greatly undermined my confidence in the NYT.
As others have noted, the heavy reliance on anecdotal colorful reporting throughout the past months, rather than real analysis of potential electorate was a disservice to your readers.
Is the NYT responsible for these election results? No. But over the next four years if he acts as he has promised to, freedom of the press as well as other constitutional freedoms will be under attack. We need the NYT as well as other responsible journalists to be there - investigating, reporting fairly, and shouting out in the editorial pages about what is happening in this country. Don't let us down.
During the Democratic primary, there was clear bias in many articles I read. On more than one occasion I found myself taken aback at the blatant bias and then found later found the article had been edited to tone it down without any indication that it had been changed. These experiences greatly undermined my confidence in the NYT.
As others have noted, the heavy reliance on anecdotal colorful reporting throughout the past months, rather than real analysis of potential electorate was a disservice to your readers.
Is the NYT responsible for these election results? No. But over the next four years if he acts as he has promised to, freedom of the press as well as other constitutional freedoms will be under attack. We need the NYT as well as other responsible journalists to be there - investigating, reporting fairly, and shouting out in the editorial pages about what is happening in this country. Don't let us down.
1
I'm not an American. But I am a NYT subscriber. I began in 2006 when I marveled at the superiority of the Times' coverage of the 2nd Lebanese War. Their bias was clear in their editorials but their reporting included ALL the facts I found in other outlets of all persuasions on the issue. all of which only reported "suitable" facts.
As time passed, the Times changed. They became so apparently narrative driven. Iran was a watershed for me. Despite the importance of the Gulf countries and their interests, the Times turned the debate into the villainous Netanyahu vs the saintly Obama. A simple morality tale. Click bait headlines only the most simplistic, contentious comments making it past the moderator, opinion - misinformed- presented as reporting.
One commentator here said it is all about income -every Trump uttering was a banner headline while more prosaic Democrats and Republicans were ignored. Someone said to me the media created a straw man to feel superior to and they blew it. He was not straw. Others say it was agenda.
I don't know why the narrative but I do remember commenting on a Middle East story that the poor journalistic standards seen there would seep into all of the NYT's work. And it has.
But I will stay on - at least as long as it takes for me to copy those recipes. I had no idea if I cancelled my subscription, I would lose my recipe box.
As time passed, the Times changed. They became so apparently narrative driven. Iran was a watershed for me. Despite the importance of the Gulf countries and their interests, the Times turned the debate into the villainous Netanyahu vs the saintly Obama. A simple morality tale. Click bait headlines only the most simplistic, contentious comments making it past the moderator, opinion - misinformed- presented as reporting.
One commentator here said it is all about income -every Trump uttering was a banner headline while more prosaic Democrats and Republicans were ignored. Someone said to me the media created a straw man to feel superior to and they blew it. He was not straw. Others say it was agenda.
I don't know why the narrative but I do remember commenting on a Middle East story that the poor journalistic standards seen there would seep into all of the NYT's work. And it has.
But I will stay on - at least as long as it takes for me to copy those recipes. I had no idea if I cancelled my subscription, I would lose my recipe box.
2
I think the Times has gone too far in the lead-with-anecdote direction of softening up news writing. I recall when that trend was new and it seemed attractive, but now the anecdotes substitute for real investigative journalism too often and, as someone else commented, a lot of what the times editors consider "news" is not really. I don't like all the 'red state' blue state graphics, which serve to reinforce divisions. And I am - like the scores of other commenters I've read here - fed up with the polling. Something's off kilter with the times, which scares me because you've been my paper of record for longer than I care to admit in print. Time for some hard reflection and re-dedication.
3
I would feel much better about this if you apologized for trying to invent scandals about Hillary Clinton where they were not significant. How many more email stories did you plan to do in pursuit of the doctrine of false equivalence?
1
The NYT is not the only paper that slammed Trump. A number of papers magazines and journals throughout the country pointed out how unsuited and ill prepared the candidate was for the presidency. That isn't bias it is truth.
This paper is the biggest target for the wrath of Don because of its prestige and long history of investigative reporting. What the NYT prints has world wide influence.
There is plenty of blame to go around. The pity party needs to end and citizens need to get on with rationally opposing the new administration. I will continue to read this newspaper for it's point of view and good reporting. However, I will continue to use other sources for a wider view of the issues.
This paper is the biggest target for the wrath of Don because of its prestige and long history of investigative reporting. What the NYT prints has world wide influence.
There is plenty of blame to go around. The pity party needs to end and citizens need to get on with rationally opposing the new administration. I will continue to read this newspaper for it's point of view and good reporting. However, I will continue to use other sources for a wider view of the issues.
2
The Times laid an egg in this election. There seems to be widespread agreement about that. Mark Halperin on the Morning Joe program put his finger on it the other day when he held up a banner Times headline from the day after the election that reads, "Democrats, students, and foreign allies face the reality of a Trump presidency." It shows that the paper has given up even the pretense of impartiality by making the main story secondary. And once that goes, there is no serious political journalism left to speak of. It's just an infomercial for your team.
2
Impartiality is a smokescreen. There is no such thing. If you somehow believe it exists, let's see examples.
Any purported impartiality simply reinforces the status quo. It says things are mostly fine, and that public discourse must stay "balanced" so that little changes.
One major result of such nonsense is the election of a fascist Donald J. Trump as president.
Any purported impartiality simply reinforces the status quo. It says things are mostly fine, and that public discourse must stay "balanced" so that little changes.
One major result of such nonsense is the election of a fascist Donald J. Trump as president.
Good start, but lets not forget who was just elected POTUS. I expect the NYT to be fair, but I also expect the NYT to pull no punches.
One way to start looking at Trump, and rating him, would be to take a snapshot of where the USA was in 2008, and where we are now.
Trump's job is to improve no that record. I can't stand the man, but if he improves on Obama's record in the following categories, I will give him his due:
Health Care - cheaper and better coverage for ALL
Reduction in income inequality
Expansion of job opportunity at all levels
Reduction of student debt (NOT just a token reduction)
Making college more affordable
Maintaining control over big banks
Containing inflation
Improving international relations
Protecting our environment
Protecting our Federal lands from commercial encroachment
Equal pay for equal work
Family leave
Reduction in gun violence
Increased equality among all races; decrease in racial tensions
Progress on containing global warming
Increase women's control over their own bodies
Reducing prison populations
Increased funding for basic research
Sensible border control
Enhancement of Social security and Medicare
Decreased military adventures abroad
Increase care for veterans
For starters...I"m waiting, Mr. Trump. Until you show that you are sincere about accomplishing the above, you will remain, for this voter, simply "Mr. Trump.
One way to start looking at Trump, and rating him, would be to take a snapshot of where the USA was in 2008, and where we are now.
Trump's job is to improve no that record. I can't stand the man, but if he improves on Obama's record in the following categories, I will give him his due:
Health Care - cheaper and better coverage for ALL
Reduction in income inequality
Expansion of job opportunity at all levels
Reduction of student debt (NOT just a token reduction)
Making college more affordable
Maintaining control over big banks
Containing inflation
Improving international relations
Protecting our environment
Protecting our Federal lands from commercial encroachment
Equal pay for equal work
Family leave
Reduction in gun violence
Increased equality among all races; decrease in racial tensions
Progress on containing global warming
Increase women's control over their own bodies
Reducing prison populations
Increased funding for basic research
Sensible border control
Enhancement of Social security and Medicare
Decreased military adventures abroad
Increase care for veterans
For starters...I"m waiting, Mr. Trump. Until you show that you are sincere about accomplishing the above, you will remain, for this voter, simply "Mr. Trump.
2
Next time, please don't have a bar or graph depicting the chance of the candidates' percentage of chance to win or lose. I think it contributed to complacency about whether to vote for Clinton or not.
Also, I have to wonder if, with the move toward online news the use of stringers has gone down. They could have provided a more accurate picture of what was going on in the heartland. Specialization doesn't lead to the whole picture.
Also, I have to wonder if, with the move toward online news the use of stringers has gone down. They could have provided a more accurate picture of what was going on in the heartland. Specialization doesn't lead to the whole picture.
Don't normalize or sugarcoat Trump and his allies racism, misogyny, and unethical actions, as they threaten democracy and decency everywhere.
3
The NYTimes editor should resign, because of bias, bad faith to the readers, excessive selection of prejudiced articles and columns, including slanted editing, avoiding the truth in so many ways, unbalanced placement of pro and con articles, his castigating editorials, his self-congratulatory smug opinions, his blind total support for one candidate and his hostility to the other candidate, and his poor judgement as to what an objective newspaper should be. He must resign.
4
This is the first time that I've visited the NYT online site since the election, and it's not surprising to find such self-serving yet clueless pablum. The Times, unfortunately, has become the journalistic version of the DNC. Instead of promising "the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence" with respect to its coverage (which should include "a dedication to recognizing irony, in all its forms"), the Times would serve its readers better and more honestly by stating "We did it wrong and we and got it wrong."
3
As an independent voter, a subscriber of the NYTimes for years, a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I found the last year of reporting to be atrocious, biased and infuriating. It was far left leaning - ignoring of Hillary's major shortcomings - and off putting to the point of causing voters to seriously consider The Donald.
It succeeded in creating a backlash win for the republicans across congress and the presidency. The issues were the story and the NYTimes downplayed these.
Now we have priorities that ignore social advances. Hopefully we will improve on tax policy and other issues voiced by Trump. We will have to guard against bashing, hatred and the other Donald talking points.
The NYTImes was complicit in electing Trump. No doubt in my mind.
It succeeded in creating a backlash win for the republicans across congress and the presidency. The issues were the story and the NYTimes downplayed these.
Now we have priorities that ignore social advances. Hopefully we will improve on tax policy and other issues voiced by Trump. We will have to guard against bashing, hatred and the other Donald talking points.
The NYTImes was complicit in electing Trump. No doubt in my mind.
2
This needs to be corrected: Hillary Clinton is NOT a political leftist. Nor is her husband. That's what Clintonism was, a capitulation to the right.
Yes, they are culturally liberal, but they are not leftists by any definition of the term.
Yes, they are culturally liberal, but they are not leftists by any definition of the term.
The NY Times along with many other papers sold lots of papers by giving the new president reams of free publicity. The NY Times was so biased for Clinton (and against Sanders) that I had to place a question mark over reporters' articles and use other sources to verify what I once could have accepted at face value. While the paper opposed Trump on the editor's page, it made a lot of money off reporting on the new president. You have responsibility for the new president's election victory. Own it.
5
The systematic problem that the NYTimes faces is that many of its most loyal readers are from the entitlement industrial complex: government agencies, "community organizations", soft subject social science departments at universities... all people looking for a way to be "helpful", i.e., ready to take offence on other people's behalf in order to advocate for them--for a nice living. With such customers, NYTimes has huge incentives to gin up intergroup issues and enforce PC. Harping on Trumps (policy irrelevant) personal failings was a huge bonanza for the NYTimes in terms of "news you can use" for the people in the entitlement industry.
1
NYT's bias is not isolated to the elections. This "paper" has been meddling in world and domestic affairs since it was acquired by Ochs. They are a self-appointed and unaccountable branch of the government, with sometimes disastrous influence in world events.
Journalistic integrity, or that "self-policing", is what gives the press it's freedom from outside forces. We put an enormous amount of trust in journalists, even more than those we elect. After this disgraceful election cycle coverage where NYT betrayed that trust over and over again, NYT is now among the tabloid/yellow journalism sector.
Trust and respect are hard to earn, but easy to lose. I hope it was worth it.
Journalistic integrity, or that "self-policing", is what gives the press it's freedom from outside forces. We put an enormous amount of trust in journalists, even more than those we elect. After this disgraceful election cycle coverage where NYT betrayed that trust over and over again, NYT is now among the tabloid/yellow journalism sector.
Trust and respect are hard to earn, but easy to lose. I hope it was worth it.
3
I hope that you are sincere about wanting to once again cover the news objectively and in an unbiased fashion. I grew up loving the New York Times. You covered all the news that was fit to print. However, your coverage during the election was disappointing. It seemed that the personal opinions of the management and editorial board caused you to not hear from a large section of the voting public and so, as a result, you failed those of your readers who counted on you to inform us. To be frank, I don't want to hear your opinions in every new article, I want to hear the facts. If you want to include opinions, then cover both sides.
As a nation, we talk so often about inclusiveness, tolerance, safe spaces. Yet, during this election students who dared to question Hillary were told they were haters and racists. To say that all those who voted for Trump are racists, bigots or haters is as narrow minded as the racists, bigots and haters. Report all the facts so that we, your readers, can make educated decisions.
As a nation, we talk so often about inclusiveness, tolerance, safe spaces. Yet, during this election students who dared to question Hillary were told they were haters and racists. To say that all those who voted for Trump are racists, bigots or haters is as narrow minded as the racists, bigots and haters. Report all the facts so that we, your readers, can make educated decisions.
2
I agree. The NYT, and many media outlets, failed to report on the state of the national electorate with any accuracy. It appears that they let their own bias against Trump dictate their coverage. They believed all Trump supporters must be racist/pick your adjective, and so they reported what fit that narrative, and missed the fact that there was a lot more going on. Instead they ran countless editorials ranting about the horrors of the campaign, with no real analysis of why he was succeeding and connecting with many voters. Frank Bruni has now written a reflective piece on this -- the NYT news staff should think about how it applies to them as well.
1
I can't get the image of the "meter" that was shown daily on the NYTimes webpage measuring Hillary Clinton's probability of winning the election. As I recall, a week prior, the meter was up to 92% probability that she would be the next US President.
The NY Times's coverage of the presidential election, particularly in the last couple of months, was disgraceful. I gave up looking at the top half of the front page, which was inevitably filled with slanted anti-Trump articles advertised by increasingly hysterical headlines -- "Trump eats children for dinner", "Poll shows Trump supporters are uniformly racist", etc.
Russell Baker was right when he told Christopher Lydon last week that the Times had proven in its election coverage that it had lost its ability to creatively cover US politics. As I said, it was, and unfortunately continues to be, disgraceful: the paper has done the United States a real disservice.
Russell Baker was right when he told Christopher Lydon last week that the Times had proven in its election coverage that it had lost its ability to creatively cover US politics. As I said, it was, and unfortunately continues to be, disgraceful: the paper has done the United States a real disservice.
2
It strikes me, as a Canadian, that most of the media coverage was biased in favor of Clinton.
The Times was definitely in that camp and declared their bias openly.
My belief is that the real losers of this election were the American public.
The Times was definitely in that camp and declared their bias openly.
My belief is that the real losers of this election were the American public.
6
Received the letter in my email. Couple of days later this sentence was in
Farhad and Mike's column: "How can a 24-year-old white male engineer at Google who graduated from Stanford ever hope to empathize with the vast majority of people who use the products he’s working on?"
What does "white" have to do with it ? Take out the word "white" and what changes. Now take out the word "male".
This kind of writing perpetuates racial division.
Substitue the word "yellow" and get howls of racism. Substitute the word "female" and get howls of sexism. Pejorative adjectives are used consistently in the NYT to promote a "deplorable" agenda. Maybe this is the root cause of some of the NYT circulation problems.
Farhad and Mike's column: "How can a 24-year-old white male engineer at Google who graduated from Stanford ever hope to empathize with the vast majority of people who use the products he’s working on?"
What does "white" have to do with it ? Take out the word "white" and what changes. Now take out the word "male".
This kind of writing perpetuates racial division.
Substitue the word "yellow" and get howls of racism. Substitute the word "female" and get howls of sexism. Pejorative adjectives are used consistently in the NYT to promote a "deplorable" agenda. Maybe this is the root cause of some of the NYT circulation problems.
5
Another institution that completely discredited itself. In this case, by printing utterly biased pieces, not printing others that it should have, and offering specious statistics throughout. Your demise might not be a great loss.
2
As a former professor of US 18th-19th century history and as a researcher who spent far too many hours perusing microfiche copies of what were then referred to as newspapers as well as unapologetic party organs, such as the Albany Argus or the Washington Intelligencer, I am sympathetic to the position the NYT has carved out for itself over the past half century or so (or at least the last time you endorsed a Republican for dog catcher). Historians are as biased as journalists, and we are trained to recognize and acknowledge this fact while at the same time remaining faithful to our sources. It is a delicate balance and most professionals working in both fields strive to maintain objectivity while also remaining true to themselves.
I will continue to subscribe because I cannot envision daily life without the Times, but I will also keep my subscription to the WSJ. But may I also suggest to Mr. Sulzberger to balance the coverage by hiring a few less ideologues in the newsroom and some more stridently argued right-wing opinion on the op-ed pages. David and Ross are interesting, but where o' where is William Safire?
I will continue to subscribe because I cannot envision daily life without the Times, but I will also keep my subscription to the WSJ. But may I also suggest to Mr. Sulzberger to balance the coverage by hiring a few less ideologues in the newsroom and some more stridently argued right-wing opinion on the op-ed pages. David and Ross are interesting, but where o' where is William Safire?
3
As a non-American (albeit currently living in the States) and a long-time digital subscriber, I depend on the NYT to provide me me with an accurate portrayal of the U.S. zeitgeist, and in this election you failed spectacularly. You gave your readers the impression that a Clinton victory was a foregone conclusion, and that Trump did not stand a chance. The only inkling I got that this may not be so, came from speaking to friends (both on the coasts and in mid-America) who conveyed their personal impressions of the wide extent of Trump's support among their relatives and acquaintances, impressions which flew in the face of your reports...
1
You might want to revisit the remit of the Public Editor. The position essentially filters the range of issues that readers raise, through one person's (necessarily) biased view. And like the game of telephone, when the PE simply says that she asked the reporter for his or her reaction, what then goes into the paper is already layers removed from the readers' real question. I understand that the position was created to try to prevent reporting that misses your paper's standards but like many functions in corporate America the role and its execution is stale, causing a news bubble within a news bubble.
The NYT covered Allan Lichtman, the only successful political scientist of 2016, way too briefly. I wish you gave more consideration to the narrative that DT was not elected because of incendiary language, but despite of it.
I am an immigrant in the US, married to a Mexican. I so wish HRC had won. But she lost: time to move on.
I worry that the narrative being emphasized by the hysteric media will make xenophobia a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We live in Georgia. I have black, Asian, and white neighbors, and so do my children; everybody has been warm. In its Atlanta rally, Mr. Trump was introduced by several Afro-Americans, and one of its biggest radio show supporters was Herman McCain. Yes, I know of Confederate flags and post-intentional racism, but won't focusing a magnifier on the embers cause a fire? Racists may overestimate their strength and become bolder.
The media would do well in treating Mr. Trump seriously, as a brilliant politician and salesman that plays to the audience, instead of letting itself be played. Please do not question the underlying goodness of Americans with a narrative overemphasizing xenophobia. The fact that a share of the population is hurting, that a small minority is outright racist, and a large share wishes to discuss immigration does not the US a bigot make. Questioning otherwise paves the way for very rough times for immigrants like me that, should they suffer discrimination in the future, will think twice before calling the manager.
I am an immigrant in the US, married to a Mexican. I so wish HRC had won. But she lost: time to move on.
I worry that the narrative being emphasized by the hysteric media will make xenophobia a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We live in Georgia. I have black, Asian, and white neighbors, and so do my children; everybody has been warm. In its Atlanta rally, Mr. Trump was introduced by several Afro-Americans, and one of its biggest radio show supporters was Herman McCain. Yes, I know of Confederate flags and post-intentional racism, but won't focusing a magnifier on the embers cause a fire? Racists may overestimate their strength and become bolder.
The media would do well in treating Mr. Trump seriously, as a brilliant politician and salesman that plays to the audience, instead of letting itself be played. Please do not question the underlying goodness of Americans with a narrative overemphasizing xenophobia. The fact that a share of the population is hurting, that a small minority is outright racist, and a large share wishes to discuss immigration does not the US a bigot make. Questioning otherwise paves the way for very rough times for immigrants like me that, should they suffer discrimination in the future, will think twice before calling the manager.
3
I am happy to be reassured that there are still people in this country with intelligence and professional commitments. Keep up all the good work you do, not matter what some may think.
This has been a "tough and dirty" week, but your statement of faith has encouraged me.
This has been a "tough and dirty" week, but your statement of faith has encouraged me.
9
How could you have gotten it so, so wrong?
20
I think you and many other media entities need to figure out how not to be manipulated by the candidates and their teams. When Donald Trump would say something shocking or outrageous on Twitter or in a speech, it seems that most media sources would repeat it over and over again, serving as the perfect amplifier and repeater. It is not right for the media to give any candidate huge amounts of free publicity, and policies and protocols need to be put in place to avoid this manipulation.
34
Never voted republican.
Stopped reading Huff Post in 2015 cause it was clearly biased.
Canceled subscription to WaPo in 2016 cause I got sick of reading anti-trump articles and editorials.
Giving NYT about 3 months to figure this out - then will likely unsubscribe and read AP new feeds.
When liberals think that your reporting is biased, you know you have a problem.
Suggestion - try having an equal split of conservative and liberal editorials and realize that the vast majority of your "news" articles are actually biased.
Report the news, not what you think the new is from your groupthink cubicle.
Stopped reading Huff Post in 2015 cause it was clearly biased.
Canceled subscription to WaPo in 2016 cause I got sick of reading anti-trump articles and editorials.
Giving NYT about 3 months to figure this out - then will likely unsubscribe and read AP new feeds.
When liberals think that your reporting is biased, you know you have a problem.
Suggestion - try having an equal split of conservative and liberal editorials and realize that the vast majority of your "news" articles are actually biased.
Report the news, not what you think the new is from your groupthink cubicle.
41
The Washington Post and the Times printed the truth about Trump. If you don't see is a racist and a fascist that's on you.
1
Ditch your polling. It was total fiction and misled all of us and gave us a totally wrong picture of the campaign. Pretending polling is scientific is a conceit we cannot afford.
33
While I admire The NY Times and it is one of the only 2 newspapers I read, I was very disappointed on the lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders.
It seemed to me that the paper's agenda for the past 6 months was to publish as much dirt as possible about Trump, and convince everyone that Hillary Clinton was the only choice.
In many occasions, in my opinion, the paper tried to persuade the public on how Bernie Sanders was not the best option while making Hillary Clinton look like the only possible choice.
I was expecting a newspaper of this caliber to report the news, and not to play a role in the elections by showing its favoritism so clearly.
It seemed to me that the paper's agenda for the past 6 months was to publish as much dirt as possible about Trump, and convince everyone that Hillary Clinton was the only choice.
In many occasions, in my opinion, the paper tried to persuade the public on how Bernie Sanders was not the best option while making Hillary Clinton look like the only possible choice.
I was expecting a newspaper of this caliber to report the news, and not to play a role in the elections by showing its favoritism so clearly.
40
Twitter is not a joke. Consider setting up guidelines for your reporters. IF they find it important enough move it to the online version of the paper. Reporters should not be renaming themselves "Halloween" for a start.
Let's set up a fund to provide free copies of the Times to in all states especially public places!
Let's set up a fund to provide free copies of the Times to in all states especially public places!
6
Like others, I too am VERY disappointed with the NYT, as well as other major media outlets. For the last number of years your organization has whittled down numbers of journalists, their reach and effort. In return, you've counted on more op-ed pieces that re-tell the current story, without original investigation. You seemed to be more responsive, rather than original -- story after story was a take on the story. Now you attempt to apologize -- too little, too late as some have commented.
I've purchased your hardcopy paper until your publisher's partners made it so inconvenient to get the paper delivered to me. I then purchased the online version -- and kept the subscription even when the price went up (and up!) and you limited me to certain sections (the crossword, and the background section -- BTW, what a way to treat your LOYAL customers!). Now, with this election, seeing that your content is just a rehash of what's out there, I have to ask myself why I'm paying for content I can find elsewhere? I used to justify my decision as I felt NYT was quality -- and I don't mind paying for quality -- but its no longer quality so we're (my wife and I) are likely to end our subscription and not renew our monthly commitment when our prepaid subscription wanes.
I thought we were alone in our disappointment - but from what I'm reading, my thoughts are more common that I ever imagined. Good on us, the readers!
I've purchased your hardcopy paper until your publisher's partners made it so inconvenient to get the paper delivered to me. I then purchased the online version -- and kept the subscription even when the price went up (and up!) and you limited me to certain sections (the crossword, and the background section -- BTW, what a way to treat your LOYAL customers!). Now, with this election, seeing that your content is just a rehash of what's out there, I have to ask myself why I'm paying for content I can find elsewhere? I used to justify my decision as I felt NYT was quality -- and I don't mind paying for quality -- but its no longer quality so we're (my wife and I) are likely to end our subscription and not renew our monthly commitment when our prepaid subscription wanes.
I thought we were alone in our disappointment - but from what I'm reading, my thoughts are more common that I ever imagined. Good on us, the readers!
49
"What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?"
Seriously? Anybody outside the coastal bubble was anxious that this was a real possibility. The Times needed to actually be in "America" for most the election to have had an even rudimentary understanding of what's been going on. That's called reporting, on the ground real-time reporting. And you didn't do it. The publisher's letter ain't gonna cut it. Do better. Starting today. Have some guts, spend more money on on-the-ground news gathering. You can do it.
Seriously? Anybody outside the coastal bubble was anxious that this was a real possibility. The Times needed to actually be in "America" for most the election to have had an even rudimentary understanding of what's been going on. That's called reporting, on the ground real-time reporting. And you didn't do it. The publisher's letter ain't gonna cut it. Do better. Starting today. Have some guts, spend more money on on-the-ground news gathering. You can do it.
23
I'm starting to look elsewhere. In the meantime, a bit of advice: make the online reader purposely navigate to commentary — just like the old days of paper and TV when commentary and news were very separate.
6
My college science journalism professor was a former editor of the NYT who taught us the of the Gray Lady’s journalistic integrity. In the 90s, the NYT studied the most popular article types and topics; naturally, my professor asked to see her reader’s preferences. She was told no; the NYT’s editors are professionals of the highest caliber, and they were trusted to print what they considered newsworthy, not cater to readers’ preferences. I’ve recently become very painfully aware of my personal echo chamber, that my social media network of friends and acquaintances are not representative of the national and global community in which I live. At the same time, responsible journalism includes all sides of a story, but often irresponsible journalism tries to cover them all equally. It’s a difficult balance, but it’s one I hope to see achieved.
In an era of buzzfeed and facebook, the free press has come under immense pressure. I’ve decided that the only way forward is to disable my adblockers and sign up for a dead tree subscription of the NYT, rallying behind the courageous paper of record behind the Pentagon Papers and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
In an era of buzzfeed and facebook, the free press has come under immense pressure. I’ve decided that the only way forward is to disable my adblockers and sign up for a dead tree subscription of the NYT, rallying behind the courageous paper of record behind the Pentagon Papers and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
5
It is hard to see the future and you folks do a good job of trying to have a crystal ball. One angle that I'd like to see more of is the changing picture of the country as we rapidly become more diverse. The red vs the blue paradigm is fine but I'd like to see how that works as the younger, more diverse America is coming to the fore. The prevailing wisdom is that voters become more conservative as they get older. Does that belief apply across all racial, ethnic and geographical groups. How does it play out for the future Electoral College maps?
3
The country needs you more than ever. Bannon in the White House is all anyone who values American pluralism needs to know. A free and honest press is the hard line between fascism and freedom.
23
I learned to read at 7 and have been following you here in the States and abroad since then (I'm 78). I cannot understand how, with the quantity and the quality and the diversity and the resources of your reporters and your editors, you missed this story. I have disconnected now from other news sources that caught even less than you, and I'm sticking with you for the moment because I see nowhere else to turn. But I am not at all sure I will trust you again.
36
Maybe stop "Brooklyn-izing" stories. Everything with you guys is "The Brooklyn of Madrid," or "Finding the Brooklyn in Miami".."The New Brooklyn of Brooklyn." "The Brooklyn of the Upper East Side." blah. it's not just travel coverage--it's the way you cover everything, culturally. It's getting old, and not everyone is looking for that aesthetic anymore. Or, ever. At first I thought I was the one who was crazy and didn't care (not everyone who reads the paper wants to see everything through that lens, and it's been shoved down our throat by the NY Times for a decade), but now I realize that it's probably just another thing the newspaper is off about.
12
This is astoundingly self-congratulatory.
49
What can I possibly say. The gap that separates the two Americas has gone on since the revolution. It is as difficult as possible but recognizing that the United States of America is as divided was the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
I was in Chicago 12 years ago and sounding the alarm, I am sure there were thousands more like me. Our comments were considered beyond the Pale.
When will the NYT admit that America doesn't work anymore.
Donald Trump is the opportunity to acknowledge there is an emergency that requires a new constitution, new countries or a solution that acknowledges the reality that there is no meeting in the middle when both sides need to go in opposite directions.
I was in Chicago 12 years ago and sounding the alarm, I am sure there were thousands more like me. Our comments were considered beyond the Pale.
When will the NYT admit that America doesn't work anymore.
Donald Trump is the opportunity to acknowledge there is an emergency that requires a new constitution, new countries or a solution that acknowledges the reality that there is no meeting in the middle when both sides need to go in opposite directions.
6
Sorry Montreal Moe, but I respectfully must question your credentials. You were in Chicago 12 years ago and now feel qualified to comment on how America works? There is "an emergency that requires a new constitution"?...Why don't you mind your own business and remove your nose from ours? The election of Mr. Trump is proof that America does work, we can elect new leaders when we perceive a past failure. I'm sure you have some issues up there in Quebec that would benefit from your expertise!
Oh my, TWB, how wrong you are. We are on the verge of a civil war. I believe you are probably aware of that.
Oh my, Henry, no I did not realize how wrong I was. And no, I did not perceive that we are on the verge of a civil war. Oh my, I must get ready for the coming calamity! Are you ready, Henry? Thanks so much for the tip!
Fox News reported this as NYT apologizing to its readers for not covering Trump fairly for fear of losing subscribers. This is sickening, if anything we need the paper now more than ever, great investigative journalism may be the only defense against the insanity and probable excesses of the next administration.
12
"..............great investigative journalism may be..........."
Yes it may be but it won't come from the NYT unless they rededicate themselves as they have admitted.
"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."
"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-p...
If this were a marriage, I would seriously consider a divorce, or at least a separation. This is not an "apology" that provides an adequate balm for my injuries. The NYT is not responsible for DJT's election. But, make no mistake, you are complicit in this reality that we all face right now. Your job was to "report all the news fit for print." But instead you provided us readers with warm milk and a place to hold hands while we navel-gazed. And I, along with countless others, lapped it up voraciously. I personally felt smug and enlightened relegating Trump supporters to backwards, fringe Americans. And I received ample support from the NYT. You did not explore the real issues facing a "significant" portion of Americans. You didn't take Trump supporters seriously. And shamefully, neither did I. So, just like I am admitting my vulnerabilities and flaws that contributed to this "historic" election, you need to do the same. I've been faithful to you for many years. Show me the same authenticity. Explore and communicate, really communicate, your failures as well.
54
I cannot say it any better than the reader whose post I am responding to, and agreeing with whole heartedly. I realize I live in a bubble and I enjoyed the podcasts and stories feeding me a daily dose of more of what I wanted to hear, but you failed the reality test and must take a serious look at your political reporting and creditability. I will no longer look to the NYT for the political journalism and polling I believed was being provided. I regret doubting the LA Times who got it right for months.
I believed in your polling....what an enormous mistake. I grew up with Western Edition of the Times and then a New Yorker, so I guess I will still be an on line member. But it will take time to adjust not only to the political disaster but not having fun anymore reading the Times.
11
I hope NY Times takes impartial view of Presidential candidates in future. I was disappointed at your dislike of Trump since onset. I am still thinking of stopping subscription. It is trusted newspaper worldwide.Please do not make it like mouthpiece of one party.
17
Don't blame the NYT for disliking Trump. An ignorant, bigoted, mendacious candidate is hard to like.
1
If the NY Times really wants loyalty from its readers -it really needs to get back to what it did best - real investigative journalism. Tonight I see on the front page of the online edition the following story: "refugees discover two Americas" - this is not news...this an anecdotal story that may be best placed in the Sunday Magazine. Can you not give us more in-depth analysis on the trade deals Trumps wants to undo? Given that Congress refused infrastructure projects under Obama to proceed, Can you report on what the GOP is now planning on doing? I want to be informed with news. A story about one or two person's experiences is not the news.
39
Look, you do a stupendous job in wildly difficult circumstances. No one is perfect.
2
So many had been influenced by the NYTimes highly biased reporting against Trump and favoring Clinton, it made me sad to think the paper of record could be so manipulative, and unethical. It has violated the public trust. Is this what we want for our young? ~ e
1
There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking to do in the weeks ahead. To cast blame — like a family member did — on the NYT for the outcome of the elections is as absurd as a child blaming the teacher for saying the moon will look bigger tonight, then feeling deceived because you could only see clouds in the New York sky. Unlike the NYT, the teacher is telling an incontrovertible truth. Hunter S. Thompson warned us that journalism cannot be objective and I am of the same persuasion. Mixing up your sources is always good. Even scientists do it. Journalism is no science. Even science is an approximation. It would be foolhardy to cancel one's subs to the NYT because of the election. Is not realizing the sky was overcast, that Comey didn't commit an impeachable offense against HRC's campaign, that military men — veterans included, perhaps even women — cannot see themselves having a woman as a CiC, that the GOP didn't do its best to damage the Clinton brand for nearly two decades, and that HRC didn't make mistakes. NYT is not Delphi. You don't read its pages to learn the truth but a fairly good approximation. Cancel your subs at your own peril. That's exactly what the president-elect would ask you to do.
1
Thank you for all your reporting. And as a token of my appreciation, I subscribed.
1
I laugh when DT slams certain newspapers. Nobody dislikes the truth more than a liar.
12
The New York Times is an excellent newspaper employing some of the best journalists there are. The fact is that certain attitudes such as being liberal in ideology cannot but color some of the coverage. Since I am a liberal, that's no problem for me.
Things get a little weirder though when editorial decisions on coverage and emphasis leak into even the coverage of the divisions found within the liberal universe. There was a strange bipolar effect of loudly emphasizing every detail of Clinton's infamous email saga and on the other hand treating her as the foregone conclusion in the primary.
It is an impossible task to be perfectly objective, a point recently made by some observers of the journalism profession.
What we regard as givens such as human rights, democratic values, the inherent value of the United States as a world power and the worth of the free press are in fact values that affect people's perceptions, which is fine, but they are subjective nevertheless.
There can be no such thing as completely objective journalism, but please continue to be as fair and reflective of the reality on the ground as you can. We appreciate the quality of your efforts.
Things get a little weirder though when editorial decisions on coverage and emphasis leak into even the coverage of the divisions found within the liberal universe. There was a strange bipolar effect of loudly emphasizing every detail of Clinton's infamous email saga and on the other hand treating her as the foregone conclusion in the primary.
It is an impossible task to be perfectly objective, a point recently made by some observers of the journalism profession.
What we regard as givens such as human rights, democratic values, the inherent value of the United States as a world power and the worth of the free press are in fact values that affect people's perceptions, which is fine, but they are subjective nevertheless.
There can be no such thing as completely objective journalism, but please continue to be as fair and reflective of the reality on the ground as you can. We appreciate the quality of your efforts.
6
It is tragic that not only the New York Times, but other newspapers and media chose to "overlook" Trump's popularity. While having your heads firmly implanted up Hillary's butt and the outgoing President's, you failed to report the news, good and bad, objectively. You chose instead to reflect your opinions as the news. The truth is, you thought you could manipulate truth and lies to suit you and your papers readers. As a result, you along with other newspapers and televised news agencies have lost your credibility. By not printing the news and just the news has shown just how low the media has gone. Now wipe the egg off your face, I believe Hillary has a cloth for that.
26
The New York Times did, indeed, lose its way this election cycle. This subscriber is disappointed, but still believes it's "the paper of record," though it seems to be a bit scratched.
8
Ever since NYT launched its internet edition in 1991, I have been loyal to NYT to the fullest. Even though I, a Korean living in Seoul, was completely disappointed from Americans' choice of a Hitler-esque Donald Trump, I'll continue to love the American conscience, NYT. Go NYT!!!
7
"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. "
If you had fulfilled your mission, we might not be feeling so betrayed right now. I'll take realism over wishful thinking any day.
Do better.
If you had fulfilled your mission, we might not be feeling so betrayed right now. I'll take realism over wishful thinking any day.
Do better.
24
After the election, I thought the elephant in the room was the extreme misreporting by the NYT and other mass media outlets. For the first time I questioned my subscription, only because I felt that my trusted source of news left me completely out of touch with reality. I also began to wonder whether I should've been reading all of the sources of news that my right-wing mother sent me, which I previously considered completely out of touch with reality. I genuinely feel that had known that Trump's likelihood of success wasn't 7%, like what the NYT near-consistently reported for months, I would have donated more money and been more vocal and mobilized. I am struggling with trusting the New York Times further. Especially reading the same types of naysaying headlines today as before the election.
26
A lot of understandable anger is expressed here in the comments, yet I would urge everyone to keep supporting an independent news organization. That is, unless you think that Breitbart should be good enough for all.
18
I would urge everyone to look into how "independent news organizations" are anything but. It's not difficult to find analyses of how the Fourth Estate operates. Chomsky's and Herman's Manufacturing Consent has been in rint for decades now.
Sure, the Times isn't Pravda. But it's all about maintaining the status quo of class and power. ***That's what its publisher and editors believe is best for us.***
Sure, the Times isn't Pravda. But it's all about maintaining the status quo of class and power. ***That's what its publisher and editors believe is best for us.***
I found the op-ed pieces analyzing what makes Trump tick and why his supporters flock to him highly insightful. Your investigative reports on the nature of his business practices, his racist rental policies back in the 70s, and his wiliness in evading taxes utterly invaluable in providing a clear picture of exactly what kind of man we'll be dealing with for the next four years. If only so many Americans' hadn't been infected by distrust of facts put forth by the "liberal media," we'd be reading about the makeup of Hillary's transition team.
11
I hope the NYT will improve from this event. Good journalism is always welcomed.
1
I have read your newspaper daily for forty years and been a subscriber for at least twenty of those. I have a degree in journalism and was a reporter for fifteen years. I was dismayed by your coverage of Senator Bernie Sanders or, rather, I should say by your lack of coverage. It seemed you did not think it was important enough to devote the time to him that you did to Clinton and Trump. Also, while I admire Maureen Dowd and have read her column for years, now when I read her going off yet again on Hillary Clinton I tune out. Enough--point taken! I am glad to read you are assessing your editorial coverage and hope to see more balanced reporting. Make this longtime reader and admirer want to stay!
19
Trump rode hate to win the White House; but he did NOT win a mandate to redefine good and evil! It's sickening to read people blame the NYT, and pretend that winning the White House somehow made him any better or different!
9
The first clue-- even in this deepest blue region-- that a national electoral upset was in the offing was the near-total absence of bumper stickers or yard signs for either Clinton or Trump. Voters wanted to cast a secret ballot, without being lumped in with and condescended to as a basket of deplorables. The notion of "making history" by electing the first woman president ignores the fact that the UK has had two female prime ministers whose husbands had not been PM before them. Kaine's remarks attributing our failure to elect a woman to dark, misogynistic impulses evince the sort of cliché thinking, along with blindness to-- face it, folks-- Clinton mendacity and self-dealing for over two decades, has gotten the Democrats to where they are, with little sign of honest self-critique on the horizon. Both parties had far better-qualified candidates, and every time the left abominates Trump, they must accept the corollary that their own shining candidate was defeated even by him. I read the Times far more as a lifestyle publication (book reviews, travel features, etc.) than as an objective source of news. We can rely on the Times to report objectively on the new president and his team about as much as we can rely on their claims to having done so all along.
18
The bankruptcy of all the in-the-know pooh-bahs--including the supposedly hip ones--is now coming at us from most articles analyzing the election. We are getting the "if we only tweet more and cooler tweets" we'll win elections and we are also getting the shop-worn and deadly advice to, once again, stand for nothing and try to make white middle class people in the midwest happy with progressive principles. I am so tired of these same tired voices monopolizing the expensive real estate of the mainstream press. Progressive consciousness in the US has a long way to go, but that's what's required--consciousness--not this frenzied, I imagine smart-white-boy-in-love-with-his-own-words pontification about "it's the economy stupid" or "let's just get down in the dirt and roll with the rest of the pigs who spew out not just hatred but sheer nonsense across all digital platforms". Sorry to surprise you with this, but ideas matter, and if progressive ideas don't win the election, it's because not enough people accept them. THAT is the problem. There are remedies, but more and cuter tweets isn't one of them.
9
The NYT is an EXCELLENT paper, with incredible stories and depth in all areas of life. You did a great job in the presidential coverage, and I will continue to support you as long as you maintain your sense of fairness, justice, and humanistic news coverage as you have done for years. Keep up the good work!
4
SO much blind faith is not good
8
I think the Times going forward needs only to two things-report the truth as it is and report the lies with as much accuracy. Do it without color and with a great sense of independance- not favoring one side or the other. Just call it as it is.
17
You basically treated Trump as a pesky rash all year, one you figured would go away on its own accord. The mainstream media let him pivot and walk all over them literally the entire year; it wasn't until the second debate that anyone actually forced him to answer a question, even then his attention span was shaken.
The tone and depth of your articles this year focused more on reinforcing Clintons inevitable ascension rather than the severity of a far-right agenda gaining pace with non-NYT readers! Much like Facebook and Twitter, your journalism feeds a defined group of readers with more of what they want to hear.
End result: the rash is here to stay with far reaching consequences. You should have been the ointment we needed, you failed... and your plea (?) is condescending and demonstrates you haven't learned the lesson. Looking forward to your in-depth coverage of Melania's China pattern and how President Trump likes his eggs.
The tone and depth of your articles this year focused more on reinforcing Clintons inevitable ascension rather than the severity of a far-right agenda gaining pace with non-NYT readers! Much like Facebook and Twitter, your journalism feeds a defined group of readers with more of what they want to hear.
End result: the rash is here to stay with far reaching consequences. You should have been the ointment we needed, you failed... and your plea (?) is condescending and demonstrates you haven't learned the lesson. Looking forward to your in-depth coverage of Melania's China pattern and how President Trump likes his eggs.
21
I disagree with many of the comments here. I think that the NYT did a good job - not a perfect job of reporting on the candidates and the election. It's certainly not their fault that Trump was elected.
I personally canvassed and donated to elect a Democrat for president and Democrats in congress. I wonder what the protesters of the NYT letter and the protesters in the streets did before the election to prevent this disappointing result.
I personally canvassed and donated to elect a Democrat for president and Democrats in congress. I wonder what the protesters of the NYT letter and the protesters in the streets did before the election to prevent this disappointing result.
3
Might I suggest that all Times' writers read Sam Freedman's Letters to a Young Journalist? Nay, they should memorize it!!! (sorry the program wouldn't let me underline the title.)
1
I am flat amazed by the number a tone of the negative comments. It seems Times readers (or at least posters) are not free from the tsuami wave of personal aggrievement sweeping over the county.
In my view the Times election coverage was excellent but decidedly imperfect. Since, unlike many other posters I too am imperfect, I'll settle for continued excellence.
In my view the Times election coverage was excellent but decidedly imperfect. Since, unlike many other posters I too am imperfect, I'll settle for continued excellence.
4
The Times revealed itself to be an incompetent troupe of one sided "journalists" with no other goal than promoting their own interests. I have subscribed for decades, but will be cancelling.
Instead of your lame half apology you should fire nearly all of your columnists. They did nothing but whine and complain the whole campaign long about how ignorant, mysoginistic and racist Trump's supporters are. Aside from their polemic, the NYT offerd little or no information to help voters make an informed choice.
Shame on you, NYT!
Instead of your lame half apology you should fire nearly all of your columnists. They did nothing but whine and complain the whole campaign long about how ignorant, mysoginistic and racist Trump's supporters are. Aside from their polemic, the NYT offerd little or no information to help voters make an informed choice.
Shame on you, NYT!
34
The Times Publisher and Executive Editor would do well to study the causes and ramifications of groupthink. When one worldview holds sway, grave errors are bound to happen.
I was dismayed when the Times declared Clinton the most qualified presidential candidate in history; then hurt and finally disgusted by the relentless ad hominem attacks coming from the op-ed page towards groups and individuals who held different views or were perceived as a threat to Clinton. Rather than observe, report and investigate, the Times jumped into the fray and acted as a strongman for their candidate.
I grew up with the NYTimes and have taken pride in my hometown newspaper - the finest in the world, I thought. 2016 is the year the scales fell from my eyes. And that is for the better but terribly painful.
I was dismayed when the Times declared Clinton the most qualified presidential candidate in history; then hurt and finally disgusted by the relentless ad hominem attacks coming from the op-ed page towards groups and individuals who held different views or were perceived as a threat to Clinton. Rather than observe, report and investigate, the Times jumped into the fray and acted as a strongman for their candidate.
I grew up with the NYTimes and have taken pride in my hometown newspaper - the finest in the world, I thought. 2016 is the year the scales fell from my eyes. And that is for the better but terribly painful.
32
There are two readerships at the times. One expects coverage straight down the middle, just the facts ma'am, with the editorializing confined to the editorial page. The other expects that the times will concentrate on President Trump's flaws to the complete exclusion of his graces, that any mention of Mrs. Clinton's emails is "false equivalence", and wants wall-to-wall coverage of whether Mr. Trump raped a 13 year old. The reporters tend to land in Category B. Straying from the narrow path between these two groups means subscription rage quits, and the loss of whatever financial stability remains at the times.
In the long run, I don't think you'll be able to satisfy both. I think you're going down the path of making the times a "safe space" because the hipsters are more likely to be around longer. But I don't think it will save you. Especially since President Trump is a counterpuncher. You hit him, he'll hit you back harder. And your many hits on him to date have failed to draw blood. He now puts on the iron glove of the presidency.
Possibly Mr. Sulzberger, in particular, might want to compare what Mr. Trump has done with a head start from his father, with what has happened to the times, which Mr. Sulzberger inherited. Long after the times has gone the way of all newsprint, the name TRUMP will be emblazoned across the skylines of American cities, and across the headlines of American history.
In the long run, I don't think you'll be able to satisfy both. I think you're going down the path of making the times a "safe space" because the hipsters are more likely to be around longer. But I don't think it will save you. Especially since President Trump is a counterpuncher. You hit him, he'll hit you back harder. And your many hits on him to date have failed to draw blood. He now puts on the iron glove of the presidency.
Possibly Mr. Sulzberger, in particular, might want to compare what Mr. Trump has done with a head start from his father, with what has happened to the times, which Mr. Sulzberger inherited. Long after the times has gone the way of all newsprint, the name TRUMP will be emblazoned across the skylines of American cities, and across the headlines of American history.
6
Towards the end of election the NYT's coverage was borderline pathetic. I stopped reading it three weeks before the election. Story after story were hit jobs on Trump. As wiki leaks proved, the media was always in for Hillary and will always be dem leaning. I used to appreciate the NYT's detail stories about issues, but now I just feel its an elitist paper that panders to liberal ideology. I am glad America saw through all the trash that was written and the democratic process worked as intended. For example, Look at Krugmams op-Ed after the election, - embarrassing! Sorry NYT's when you get back to good honest, objective reporting I will be back. Until then it's over to WSJ.
22
What is embarrassing is the fact that you are not aware that your country now has a fascist government.
Just an opinion but NYTimes is very biased during presidential election and even until now. NYTimes must apologize to Mr. Trump. Thank you.
11
I quite agree. The Times gave Mr. Trump way too much attention and even had to gall to print his statements as if he had really thought about them.
6
Funny you ask. The address to send the actual apology you are (surely just now) writing is:
Senator Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senate
332 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senate
332 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
31
Excellent post!!!
1
Why can't we scrutinize your reporting of Mike Bannon, both articles lack the ability to leave comments?
Because the Times knows when and how to deploy firewalls against the hoards of weaponized Trolls that Bannon has amassed in his war against the MSM.
6
I posted a comment, then read a number of previous comments already posted. Them I went back and re-read the letter. And this is what I concluded: Donald Trump won because many Americans can't pick out the content of what they see and hear and separate it from their biases. And this man knew how to play this deficiency skillfully. They'll follow him right off the edge of Trump Tower if he tells them to.
10
As a left-leaning independent, I'm not particularly fond of Trump's deportation plans. But since it looks like we're headed in that direction, perhaps Trump could start with the journalists and editors of the NY Times.
14
The Times should just apologize. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but there's nothing else to say except sorry for going so horribly wrong -- in the substance of the coverage, in the ridiculous odds of Clinton victory that sat on the front page all through October, absurd on its face yet complacency-inspiring. You want scapegoats for why a close election went the wrong way? I will give you two: Comey and the NY Times.
12
I have been a reader of the NYT for over 50 years. Still remember waiting for the Manhattan Sunday Edition to hit the newsstands at 11 PM on Saturday Night. When I lived in San Francisco, I used to drive down to the airport and get my Sunday NYT to enjoy with Sunday Brunch at a favorite restaurant.
My main sources of news is the NYT and the PBS News Hour. With only a couple of exceptions newspapers remain a great waste land, like commercial TV.
WOW comments in this comments section on our recent election is still a very hot topic - accusing the NYT of bias says something about some of the readers!
My main sources of news is the NYT and the PBS News Hour. With only a couple of exceptions newspapers remain a great waste land, like commercial TV.
WOW comments in this comments section on our recent election is still a very hot topic - accusing the NYT of bias says something about some of the readers!
4
I agree with you Butch. I have read the paper here in Toledo for about 45 years. It along with NPR is a main source of news. I trust it and just had a discussion of media/journalism with my son, who is a communications/journalism major. I don't see the bias some of the other commenters see. If you don't like the paper, don't read it......
2
I have been a NYT's reader and subscriber for over 50 years, but over the course of this election and on election night, my confidence in the Times made the same dizzying reversal that your Clinton/Trump graph did. Now that I can get free digital access to the Washington Post via subscribing to my local newspaper, the Bucks County Courier Times, I may yet cancel.
Apparently, many of your readers reacted similarly, and hence The Letter. If, however, it was meant to reassure us that you are up to the job of covering and holding accountable an administration that seems poised to continue spewing out lies. threats and misinformation at the speed of 140 characters per tweet, install someone in the White House whose track record indicates he may set up the country's first state-run propaganda machine, will look to upend libel laws to strike fear among its critics, stifle dissent, and try to sue the Times and any news organization it deems adversarial out of existence ala The Gawker, your letter gives no comfort. Little you have done over the course of this election cycle indicates you are up to that task.
If the Times continues cutting staff, cutting investigative reporters and resources, not forging mutually beneficial relationships with regional and local journalists, and failing to broaden readership and respect across all parts of the country, it will not survive, and I fear, given the forces we are now facing, neither may our democracy.
Apparently, many of your readers reacted similarly, and hence The Letter. If, however, it was meant to reassure us that you are up to the job of covering and holding accountable an administration that seems poised to continue spewing out lies. threats and misinformation at the speed of 140 characters per tweet, install someone in the White House whose track record indicates he may set up the country's first state-run propaganda machine, will look to upend libel laws to strike fear among its critics, stifle dissent, and try to sue the Times and any news organization it deems adversarial out of existence ala The Gawker, your letter gives no comfort. Little you have done over the course of this election cycle indicates you are up to that task.
If the Times continues cutting staff, cutting investigative reporters and resources, not forging mutually beneficial relationships with regional and local journalists, and failing to broaden readership and respect across all parts of the country, it will not survive, and I fear, given the forces we are now facing, neither may our democracy.
3
Too late. I'm cancelling my subscription for the sloppy way you handled this, I expected much better from you!
10
I am certain that the new administration will act on a vendetta against the New York Times and any other media outlet that said an unkind word about him. This paper survived Nixon enemies lists in the 20th Century,, and will certainly be challenged to survive in an America in the 21st Century that is increasingly turning against the liberties that made it the leader of the Free World. But as the pen proved mightier than the sword in the past, even the looming dark age of the Trump Tower won't dim the light of a free press determined to get the story out. Thank you for your service in keeping America just as free as the armed forces do.
8
Fairness and scrutiny? Puh-leeze. You hardly covered Bernie Sanders's campaign and Clinton's coronation was a foregone conclusion. This much was clear in every article written about her.
It's a little late now that we've elected a madman to the White House.
It's a little late now that we've elected a madman to the White House.
29
The self-congratulatory tone of this article is disappointing. The ability of the newsroom to have "turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity" -- that is, to report on unexpected facts -- should not be remarkable but expected of journalists. Unprecedented though it is, support for Trump was clearly much stronger than reported: this is surely a failure of reporting, with consequences that ought to be pondered. It would have been encouraging to see more reflection on the part of the Times here, as the country and the world grapple with the fallout of last week's results.
16
This country needs the Times more than ever. Thank you for everyone's efforts to report the news in a trustful and unbiased manner.
3
A "note"? I'm sorry but your onslaught against Trump has only been outdone by the Washington Post. The NYT forced me to read Fox News each day in order to try to find some semblance of what is really happening. I really believe your coverage helped Trump win in the end because it made many feel suspicious (is he really as bad as they say? When I listen to him in context trump isn't that awful). So the Times blew it and this mea culpa just doesn't get at the root of the problem. News reporting was openly slanted in what was covered and the words used to describe. Constant editorials against Trump did not feel right to me. There was no attempt at any real debate or dialogue. I'll continue to read the Times but you've lost my trust. Work hard and earn it back with real attempt at balanced reporting. Amazingly, some of the Fox News people showed everyone what this looks like and hope you follow their path. I'm shocked that this is the case since so much of Fox has the likes of Hannity.
13
brilliant. perfectly stated.
NYT: You could stand to reflect and internalize what this post says. if you somehow think you were actually "reporting without fear or favor" during the campaign you will soon be out of business.
NYT: You could stand to reflect and internalize what this post says. if you somehow think you were actually "reporting without fear or favor" during the campaign you will soon be out of business.
5
What would be a better indication of anti-intellectualism than these two comments here? The Times did not come close to detailing how "bad" Trump is. Like most media organs, it tended to ignore or bury most of Trump's clear history of spectacularly unethical conduct. His history is clear, should you choose to read it.
"The end of history" is upon us, but not in the Fukuyama sense.
"The end of history" is upon us, but not in the Fukuyama sense.
You should have already been doing that. Now that you don't have to worry about funding from Hillary you decide to start telling the truth? Too late
8
I feel vindicated in my decision to cancel the subscription to the NYT a year ago when it became too obvious to me that the 'newspaper of record' became a broken record for the Anointed Supreme Leader. Only a new management team and, with few exceptions, a new team of political reporters, plus moving the space-wasting editorials from the front page, might induce me to subscribe again. However, I have some doubts if the NYT is still in operation when these changes are implemented as the last resort.
13
You canceled your subscription and yet here you are. I know well enough that people whose comments include phrases like "Annointed Supreme Leader" are operating on a different wavelength than I am, but you've lost me here.
If you canceled, how did you read the article and if you canceled, why did you read the article?
If you canceled, how did you read the article and if you canceled, why did you read the article?
3
So you lied about Trump, you lied about Hillary, and you abandoned any pretense of independent journalism to actually work for the Clinton campaign, and now you're asking for trust? You won't get it, and if there were any law in this country you'd be getting a variety of criminal charges.
12
Any publication despised by Trump has great value to me. My subscription to the NYT begins today.
15
More than ever, we need strong, independent investigative reporting. With this self assessment, I trust the Gray Lady to get it right. My subscription began today.
2
So what you are saying is that you will change what you have been doing for the last many years. You will either stop identifying all Republicans as right wing or you will start identifying all Democrats as left wing. You will not try to cast aspersions on a candidate as you did with your front page, above the fold article about how much debt Donald Trump had without reporting what his total assets were.
1
When the candidate refused to release his tax records for the American people, it was up to journalists to try to find as much information as possible. The reports published were records and information that responsible journalist were able to locate and/or peruse.
Unless candidates follow the norm, it is the obligation of journalists and newspapers to find and publish any information to inform the public.
Unless candidates follow the norm, it is the obligation of journalists and newspapers to find and publish any information to inform the public.
7
The NYT is still the best we've got. However, I was so surprised by the absence of banner headlines on the front page comparing the candidates on the issues, that I actually e-mailed you guys asking for them. Pardon me if I couldn't find them; I tried. Here are some examples that people could have used to get the word out:
1. Chart comparing HRC and Trump debt trajectories through 2026 and beyond(CRFB). Shows Trump dramatically blowing up the debt and deficit, while Clinton responsibly stays with the current baseline.
2. Chart comparing economic growth and job creation under HRC and Clinton (Moody's Analytics/Mark Zandi). No comparison, HRC wins hands-down.
3. Chart comparing what huge tax cuts for the rich and big cuts in non-defense spending do to income and wealth inequality.
4. Risk to Social Security and Medicare (privatization) if Ryan's far-right agenda gets a foothold (see Jonathan Chait).
I'd still put up those comparisons; people need a common fact base to work from.
1. Chart comparing HRC and Trump debt trajectories through 2026 and beyond(CRFB). Shows Trump dramatically blowing up the debt and deficit, while Clinton responsibly stays with the current baseline.
2. Chart comparing economic growth and job creation under HRC and Clinton (Moody's Analytics/Mark Zandi). No comparison, HRC wins hands-down.
3. Chart comparing what huge tax cuts for the rich and big cuts in non-defense spending do to income and wealth inequality.
4. Risk to Social Security and Medicare (privatization) if Ryan's far-right agenda gets a foothold (see Jonathan Chait).
I'd still put up those comparisons; people need a common fact base to work from.
13
Now u r spinning your spins. Such galling deceit.
10
I haven't read the NYT since Tuesday evening. Prior to that I read the Times at least 45 minutes a day. You let us down. You went with the destructive circus act much too long. You acted like he was normal and OK for much too long. I am dismayed. You have a long, long way to go to earn back my trust and respect. Please try.
16
I too am a subscriber and disappointed reader of your election coverage. I actually had to stop reading the political section leading up to the election because it was so biased and blatantly ignoring a VERY real possibility that Trump would be elected. I for one never thought Hilary was a shoe in and was anxious for the last few months thinking it was 50/50 this whole time. Yet every single time I looked at your front page on nytimes.com you had Hilary winning at 80-90%. Those are outrageous and false numbers to predict and seeing that led me to stop reading most articles. We readers don't want to read only things we want to hear, we want read and hear the truth reported.
29
The bias of the Times against Bernie Sanders contributed to the election of Trump. Sanders had as large crowds and enthusiastic supporters whom your paper derided. Polls showed he could beat Trump by double digits. But you were able to shut him out and push your beloved Hillary to the nomination. You, sirs, deserve primary credit for this man's election. Hillery ran a poor campaign, while hers was not quite as low as his, it was tabloid in character. Bernie would have gone high and won. So take your bows. You deserve what will happen to freedom of the press with Attorney General Giuliani.
19
Where is the Times investigative journalism? When it was announced that over fifty thousand e/mails were found on Anthony Weiners' laptop I was immediately suspicious. When his wife Huma said that she did not use the computer for business I knew something was very wrong.
What happened was that while the computer was in custody someone loaded messages that were already submitted to the FBI onto the Weiner computer. It was announced by the Director that it was a new find and influenced the voters. Nobody looked into this when the Director said there were duplicates. It was political espionage.
What happened was that while the computer was in custody someone loaded messages that were already submitted to the FBI onto the Weiner computer. It was announced by the Director that it was a new find and influenced the voters. Nobody looked into this when the Director said there were duplicates. It was political espionage.
6
good story. any evidence?
5
You missed the boat on the election, villifying Ms. Clinton, practicing false equivalences with Trump. You helped lead the charge into Iraq in 2003, and your late apologies for both are useless.
12
You lost me. I can no longer trust you. You're not better than Fox News to me now. Adios, subscription cancelled.
14
This is my last posting. So disappointed with NYT -- after 50 years. Shameful coverage.
16
About your last paragraph:
Was my past loyalty the reason you had such poor vision?
If I don’t remain loyal, will your future missteps be my fault?
Was my past loyalty the reason you had such poor vision?
If I don’t remain loyal, will your future missteps be my fault?
3
Mr. Sulzberger, you failed miserably. I've been a longtime New York Times reader and a subscriber to the web site for four years. I cancelled my subscription today. I'm ashamed of you and your paper's coverage of this election.
18
The NYT faced the biggest challenge of its history--fighting imminent tyranny with only the truth--and failed utterly. You destroyed the Democratic nominee--seemingly for sport--and your coverage encouraged protest votes.
Your apologies are empty; your pride in your coverage an outrage. You'll be analysing Stephen Bannon's strangers or actions with great nuance soon, I expect.
Your apologies are empty; your pride in your coverage an outrage. You'll be analysing Stephen Bannon's strangers or actions with great nuance soon, I expect.
13
Throughout the entire campaign, your daily tracking poll essentially had Hillary as a lock to win. Meanwhile, people like Michael Moore, who was actually out talking to people, warned us what was coming. Enough said.
28
Instead of aiming, perhaps the NYT staff should actually "require" honest journalism as part of the job. You lost my respect along with many others when your news organization decided to collude with the DNC to push Hillary on the masses. As many others have stated, your paper became an echo chamber extolling the virtues of Hillary while bemoaning and disparaging the true progressive that ran for President: Bernie Sanders.
I place a significant amount of blame for the outcome of the election on the media, and a large percentage of that rests squarely upon the NYT. Has any of your reporters lost their jobs over this election season journalism farce? Perhaps it's time to clean house and bring in new reporters/opinionators capable of producing trustworthy journalism.
I place a significant amount of blame for the outcome of the election on the media, and a large percentage of that rests squarely upon the NYT. Has any of your reporters lost their jobs over this election season journalism farce? Perhaps it's time to clean house and bring in new reporters/opinionators capable of producing trustworthy journalism.
25
I think this says it all as far as I'm concerned:
I have been a continual paid subscriber to the NYT since 1963.
I have been a continual paid subscriber to the NYT since 1963.
3
I am and have been a NYT digital subscriber and I intend to continue with my subscription in the short term. I have to say that I found the Times coverage of the election to be quite obviously tilted toward HRC and I felt it became more so as the actual election became closer and as the Times gave her their endorsement. Even as the results were being reported, I found it instructive that the Trump victory was being called an "upset" (what an unusual term for an electoral victory) rather than a "surprise", as if the expectations that had been built were somehow still valid and just the result was incomprehensible. And there was in the lead story a rather full recounting of each Trump "gaffe" which should have led any reporter to the obvious conclusion that HRC, despite the NYT's cheerleading, was a very flawed candidate, and that angle should have been more thoroughly explored. This would have been a more dispassionate and interesting approach. Alas, even then the NYT could not rise to occasion, apparently suffering mass PTSD over the nearly unbelievable turn of events. I am hopeful that the editorial preferences of the Grey Lady will have less color on the reportorial aspects of the paper going forward, for the sake of "fairness" that you are telling me now that I can rely upon.
10
A wholly fair criticism. For me, going forward, I trust the NYT but verify by reading other sources. An example of the paper's flawed reporting is the failure to analyze the Trans pacific Partnership agreement from any but a corporatist perspective. Its ISDS (Investor state dispute Settlement) provision is more dangerous to the average citizen than ISIS. It allows corporations (investors) to sue countries (state) for threat of diminished expected profit due to regulation and then take the case to binding arbitration in a corporate lawyer staffed court. States (countries) cannot sue investors (corporations) for damage to environment or workers' health. Imagine a Bhopal--the country's taxpayers would pay for the damage. The Times has given the same limited analysis it gave to Trump. They admit now that Trump is a relative unknown! How in the name of reality can this be?
3
This is the paper who promoted on the front page and printed a column about Hillary saying that a bitch was needed in the White House.
You also forgot to write the story about Colin Powell's email to Hillary instructing her on how to circumvent communications as Secretary of State.
I think the NYT has a lot of work to do journalistically-speaking in getting their act together. You helped Trump win, God help us.
You also forgot to write the story about Colin Powell's email to Hillary instructing her on how to circumvent communications as Secretary of State.
I think the NYT has a lot of work to do journalistically-speaking in getting their act together. You helped Trump win, God help us.
9
You as well as the rest of the media lost its way. The stunning consequences you and all the rest of us in the world will have to pay for in the near and distant future are overwhelming.
My subscription to the NYT was my first successful sales pitch to my father in fourth grade. We shared articles for current events and settled arguments around the dinner table by quoting from these pages. I guess we all became arrogant and filled with hubris.
So now as I approach seventy years of age and a subscription that followed me to Germany when I lived abroad, I will continue my subscription and hold you to reporting the facts, the full picture and recommit to adjusting my lens to a 360 degree view of the world by searching out sources that don't agree with you or me. We are paying a huge price for our complacency. Growing up we had 4 dailies not just one.
My subscription to the NYT was my first successful sales pitch to my father in fourth grade. We shared articles for current events and settled arguments around the dinner table by quoting from these pages. I guess we all became arrogant and filled with hubris.
So now as I approach seventy years of age and a subscription that followed me to Germany when I lived abroad, I will continue my subscription and hold you to reporting the facts, the full picture and recommit to adjusting my lens to a 360 degree view of the world by searching out sources that don't agree with you or me. We are paying a huge price for our complacency. Growing up we had 4 dailies not just one.
3
I am considering canceling my subscription. Trump's election has revealed how biased and unreliable the Times' reporting truly is.
6
HTTPS://youtu.be/SJOwk_Xi7H4
Here is an incredible breakdown of your ridiculous letter. Good luck rededicating yourselves.
Here is an incredible breakdown of your ridiculous letter. Good luck rededicating yourselves.
1
Carmen, I tried your link but the video has been pulled. Why?
1
I believe The Times became enchanted with a Clinton victory, and lost the reality of a very disenchanted America, which would have been demonstrated no matter who would have won, but with Trump for banks America is great again.
6
Thank you for your comments about coverage. In our case the comments weren't necessary as we expected as much from your organization and team of journalists. We're just sorry that you felt that it was necessary in this climate to comment. My husband and I are loyal readers and will continue to be.
1
Not sure if some commentators here are angry that the Times didn't accurately predict the election outcome or that the Times pointed out Trump's obvious shortcomings. While thinking and reading critically is the responsibility of the individual, I'll take the journalism of the NY Times every time. That we now have a representative of Breitbart in the White House is far more troubling and offensive than anything the Times could possibly dream up. We need media like the Times now more than ever.
10
"Quixotic"
The adjective repeatedly used by the times to describe Bernie's campaign...
The adjective repeatedly used by the times to describe Bernie's campaign...
23
Personally, I am done with prognostication, particularly when it is unsupported. We saw how accurate it was during the election campaign. Right now columnists are raking the future with what is going to happen during a Trump administration. Seems to me much of it is about stoking fears or parading worst case scenarios.
Yes, I personally think the next 4 or 8 years is going to be particularly bad, but I would much prefer a focus on the the reporting and analysis of things that have actually happened. Punditry and doom-saying don't get us anywhere.
Yes, I personally think the next 4 or 8 years is going to be particularly bad, but I would much prefer a focus on the the reporting and analysis of things that have actually happened. Punditry and doom-saying don't get us anywhere.
7
I could not agree more.
2
Sirs,
I am loyal, but I hope I'm not blind. A few times over the last 2 weeks an alter ego with limited access has commented on your columns and had found himself shut out.
Fair enough. But it belies your comments on fear or favour, if you claim honesty on reporting.
It would have been appropriate if your comment-evaluators had found him to be abusive or flippant. He believes he was neither of those, especially if flippancy is egregious.
I urge you to take the editorial stance that all comments, sensical or non-, be unfiltered, if they are respectful. Anything else would belie your claims.
Deeply aggrieved,
Sweet Tooth,
The Cloud.
I am loyal, but I hope I'm not blind. A few times over the last 2 weeks an alter ego with limited access has commented on your columns and had found himself shut out.
Fair enough. But it belies your comments on fear or favour, if you claim honesty on reporting.
It would have been appropriate if your comment-evaluators had found him to be abusive or flippant. He believes he was neither of those, especially if flippancy is egregious.
I urge you to take the editorial stance that all comments, sensical or non-, be unfiltered, if they are respectful. Anything else would belie your claims.
Deeply aggrieved,
Sweet Tooth,
The Cloud.
3
When I was young the press took pride in reporting a story from an unbiased perspective, to share the facts and allow people to decide for themselves how to think. Over the years it has morphed into telling people how to think, what to believe, and who will win an election. The New York Times has engaged in character assassination, and decided to take an active role in attempting to influence the American People instead of staying neutral. This apology is meaningless, as is your paper. It has become as useless as the Huffington Post. The press in general should be ashamed of the liberal bend that is applied to everything, as well as the behavior of name calling everyone who disagrees with you as racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic. You are a disgrace to journalism, and no more than I would believe Wells Fargo Bank would change without a change of leadership, neither do I believe the NY Times would have any hope to become relevant again, without a leadership change from the disgusting short sighted individuals who have caused its demise. I doubt given your continuing bend to the irrational will even allow you to publish this comment.
14
"Impartial?" Great goal, buy hardly what you've managed to accomplish...and still are not accomplishing. It possibly would be more effective for the NYT if you quit asserting you commitment to impartiality altogether. Then, at least, you couldn't be accused of hypocrisy. At least you manage less obvious partiality than NPR or the Wahington Post, so that's something a little positive anyway.
8
"story reached... (an) unexpected climax"
It reflects a stubborn tin-ear to congratulate yourselves on your 'flexibility.' (Are you saying: better last minute than never?).
You tacitly state you had an expectation about the outcome of this story. I believe that having an expectation going into a story is not one of the principles of journalistic objectivity.
It reflects a stubborn tin-ear to congratulate yourselves on your 'flexibility.' (Are you saying: better last minute than never?).
You tacitly state you had an expectation about the outcome of this story. I believe that having an expectation going into a story is not one of the principles of journalistic objectivity.
6
As a daily reader and subscriber, I find the NYTimes continues to be very biased in reporting on Trump, even after the election. It is no longer an objective newspaper. Each article needs to be mentally censored and cleansed of negative adjectives.
14
The Times need to educate all its readers about what journalism is and how it works. NYT editors pledged to hang Clinton's skin on her wall. The entire email non story was artfully written, in collaboration with Republican congressmen who leaked the information, to make it seem as if she'd done something wrong. Once the NYT starts something, every other news outlet feels free to run with it as if there's something there. We saw it with Whitewater, with the Iraq war, and now with the emails.
8
The Times is complicit in HRC's defeat. The liberal media's condescension towards Trump supporters drove them to suppress any public support for him. This in turn contributed to the wish-is-father-to-the-thought mentality than guaranteed (88% !!) a victory for her. The reason so many Times readers were stunned by her loss was that SHE NEVER WAS THAT FAR AHEAD. I wonder how many more of her supporters would've turned out if they knew how close it (always) was?
(By the way...if the Trump voters were so STUPID...what does that make the HRC strategists...who lost to them?)
(By the way...if the Trump voters were so STUPID...what does that make the HRC strategists...who lost to them?)
15
I find it hard to believe that all those Obama voters who switched to Trump this time were pulling their hair to protect their white identity.
All the Trump voters I know:
1. Didn't like or trust Clinton
2. Didn't believe for a second that Clinton cared about people in their economic situation
But do console yourself with the popular social justice warrior narrative that all his voters are racists and sexists.
It's a comforting fairy tale that will help you feel smug and morally superior in this loss.
Incidentally, it will also keep you from coming to terms with the real reasons for Clinton's loss and keep the Democratic Party from figuring out a way out of this wilderness.
For that, Donald J. Trump, as he begins his reelection campaign, thanks you.
All the Trump voters I know:
1. Didn't like or trust Clinton
2. Didn't believe for a second that Clinton cared about people in their economic situation
But do console yourself with the popular social justice warrior narrative that all his voters are racists and sexists.
It's a comforting fairy tale that will help you feel smug and morally superior in this loss.
Incidentally, it will also keep you from coming to terms with the real reasons for Clinton's loss and keep the Democratic Party from figuring out a way out of this wilderness.
For that, Donald J. Trump, as he begins his reelection campaign, thanks you.
2
Yes, the NYT is incredibly biased and needs to fix this asap (please!), but its coverage of the election is NOT what put Trump in office. Most people who voted for Trump don't read the NYT. And if anyone that would have voted for HRC decided not to because the NYT (along with all the other major news outlets) predicted a slam dunk for her, then they (and we) have only themselves to blame.
Many comments here sound as though the NYT was the only poll to predict an HRC landslide. Pretty much every major news outlet predicted an HRC win, including Fox News. Yes, the LA Times/USC poll predicted Trump, and yes, the NYT blasted their approach, but just because a handful of outliers happened to get this one right, doesn't mean that's always the best approach and it doesn't mean that all the other approaches are wrong. It's an imperfect science; all we can do now is learn from it.
I will keep my NYT subscription and continue to be an avid reader. I will however, look to diversify my news sources since I realize the NYT is incredibly biased. I can't effectively debate with my ultra-conservative father (who calls the NYT a 'liberal rag') by quoting the NYT. Considering the WSJ but let me know any recs!
Many comments here sound as though the NYT was the only poll to predict an HRC landslide. Pretty much every major news outlet predicted an HRC win, including Fox News. Yes, the LA Times/USC poll predicted Trump, and yes, the NYT blasted their approach, but just because a handful of outliers happened to get this one right, doesn't mean that's always the best approach and it doesn't mean that all the other approaches are wrong. It's an imperfect science; all we can do now is learn from it.
I will keep my NYT subscription and continue to be an avid reader. I will however, look to diversify my news sources since I realize the NYT is incredibly biased. I can't effectively debate with my ultra-conservative father (who calls the NYT a 'liberal rag') by quoting the NYT. Considering the WSJ but let me know any recs!
8
"It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly." Thank you for pledging this to your readers. I count on the integrity of the New York Times.
4
I heard Mr. Sulzberger interviewed just before the election. Asked about Trump accusing the Times of biased coverage, the publisher scoffed. He said anyone could see the Times spent as much coverage investigating Clinton's potential flaws as Trump's.
A mea culpa. The message, from the top of the paper to the newsroom: do equal negative reporting on each side.
"All the news that's fit ..." That fits. It's a scarce resource. Prioritize. Foreign intervention in a U.S. election, or an email marked confidential on a Chappaqua server? 10 million in detention centers, or an email from a Clinton foundation confidant?
The Times diverted resources to Clinton's emails. Editor Dean Baquet said he'd risk prison to print Trump's taxes. It takes effort: a team to build contacts across IRS, with enough people, some talk. Drill into cracks. For every Ellsberg, ten anonymous leakers have password access. One hits print or send, and gets Baquet his sentence.
But the Times devoted one or two reporters to the story, for a month, then shifted them to the Clinton foundation. Sulzberger calls the shots. He's probably satisfied, now. Fair and balanced in its negative coverage, isn't the Times positioned to develop contacts in the new administration?
How naive! Sulzberger appeased Trump, hoping to protect the paper. Trump assumes Sulzberger, having capitulated in the election, will roll over meekly about nuclear proliferation, detention camps, etc. Two sons with inherited family power, a mess.
A mea culpa. The message, from the top of the paper to the newsroom: do equal negative reporting on each side.
"All the news that's fit ..." That fits. It's a scarce resource. Prioritize. Foreign intervention in a U.S. election, or an email marked confidential on a Chappaqua server? 10 million in detention centers, or an email from a Clinton foundation confidant?
The Times diverted resources to Clinton's emails. Editor Dean Baquet said he'd risk prison to print Trump's taxes. It takes effort: a team to build contacts across IRS, with enough people, some talk. Drill into cracks. For every Ellsberg, ten anonymous leakers have password access. One hits print or send, and gets Baquet his sentence.
But the Times devoted one or two reporters to the story, for a month, then shifted them to the Clinton foundation. Sulzberger calls the shots. He's probably satisfied, now. Fair and balanced in its negative coverage, isn't the Times positioned to develop contacts in the new administration?
How naive! Sulzberger appeased Trump, hoping to protect the paper. Trump assumes Sulzberger, having capitulated in the election, will roll over meekly about nuclear proliferation, detention camps, etc. Two sons with inherited family power, a mess.
4
The truth is not in the middle.
The truth is not in the middle.
The truth is not in the middle.
5
Very well said, Brian of Oakland.
"Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?"
Donald Trump has literally been a public figure in New York City for a half-century, working just blocks from Times Square. If any news organization should know Mr. Trump, it's the Times. You had DECADES to build a rapport with him. Yet the Times treated him dismissively so that despite almost 2 years of primaries and general election, he remains a "largely enigmatic figure."
The Times' failure is institutional attitude. A generation ago newspapers, including the Times, were caught off-guard by race riots. Realizing the newsroom didn't look like America, the Times did an admirable job of diversifying its newsroom. But in its focus on adding color and gender, it forgot to consider having different political philosophies in the newsroom. Until the Times has meaningful political diversity in the newsroom, it will continue to read less like news and more like the unofficial house organ of the DNC.
Donald Trump has literally been a public figure in New York City for a half-century, working just blocks from Times Square. If any news organization should know Mr. Trump, it's the Times. You had DECADES to build a rapport with him. Yet the Times treated him dismissively so that despite almost 2 years of primaries and general election, he remains a "largely enigmatic figure."
The Times' failure is institutional attitude. A generation ago newspapers, including the Times, were caught off-guard by race riots. Realizing the newsroom didn't look like America, the Times did an admirable job of diversifying its newsroom. But in its focus on adding color and gender, it forgot to consider having different political philosophies in the newsroom. Until the Times has meaningful political diversity in the newsroom, it will continue to read less like news and more like the unofficial house organ of the DNC.
16
You are an example of the dismissive elitists that empowered the Trump voters. 23% of Trump voters had voted for Obama. How racist is that?
4
"Without... favor" - priceless!
11
We have been Times readers for many years. We saw that you did NOT cover this election fairly. Hard to think the Times was on Trump's side, but you did all you could to ruin Clinton. Far more coverage of her emails than the many threats posed by Trump, including his horrid past and actions. Now, you tell us you want to do fair and honest reporting. That is what we expected from you all along. You helped to elect this disaster. It will take a long time, if ever, to regain our trust.
10
Sorry sir, but NYT was my main source on your election and it was constantly pointing out Trump's flaws, to the point where I could regale my Australian friends in enormous detail about his negative resume. We all asked the question how could a man with such a record of mendacity, fakery, policy ignorance and business failure (as opposed to hucksterism), even if you put to one side the misogyny and pandering to bigotry, be supported by even 10% of the electorate, let alone (nearly) 50%. As someone said on TV yesterday, not fit to be given a job at KMart (unfair, might be a good hard sell salesman). We assumed too many decent, law abiding, god-fearing folk in Middle America would follow the lead of many Republican leaders and reject him. It wasn't like Clinton was very radical or left-wing - overall, probably to the left of UK Conservative PM Theresa May in terms of actual policies. Yes the UK voted for Brexit, but no-one there is going to challenge socialised medicine or gun control or a range of other things that would have the American Right frothing at the mouth.
4
Didn't you guys have Tony Abbott for a PM just a short while ago? I wouldn't get up on my high marsupial any time soon if I wuz you, mate.
3
Arthur,
TV media, late night hosts and the NYT failed to crush our Pres. elect. I want Change but cringed at some of the things that came out of Trumps mouth. Lets move on. I want media to be impartial.Take some lessons from Brinkley and Cronkite. I am putting you on probation. My wife asked me not to cancel my subscription because she likes your TV and Film recommendations. Back your commander in chief.
TV media, late night hosts and the NYT failed to crush our Pres. elect. I want Change but cringed at some of the things that came out of Trumps mouth. Lets move on. I want media to be impartial.Take some lessons from Brinkley and Cronkite. I am putting you on probation. My wife asked me not to cancel my subscription because she likes your TV and Film recommendations. Back your commander in chief.
3
Such a smug and unapologetic piece, in the best tradition of the NYT covering itself as news. These 2 execs seem to have no awareness of their own responsibility in the election's outcome. Less rigorous reporting, agenda driven opinion pieces disguised as journalism, false equivalence in coverage, and an unearned sense of self importance makes this once great paper marginal, biased, and diminished. If not for the puzzle I'd be long gone.
17
First of all, as a person who only reads the Times from the USA, I believe that I was deceived and betrayed by the Times. Based on what I read on Times, I thought the election would be a landslide victory for Hillary. Although I appreciate and enjoy the quality journalism and in-depth reviews provided by the Times, the Times seems to have lost touch with reality and ordinary people on the street.
Secondly, I understand the grounds why the Times opposed Trump's presidency - and I well agree that, however, in my humble opinion, the Times should not have openly endorsed Hillary, the better of the two evils. It should let its readers to decide on their own. On another note, I think, Times' explicit endorsement enraged the ordinary folks.
Secondly, I understand the grounds why the Times opposed Trump's presidency - and I well agree that, however, in my humble opinion, the Times should not have openly endorsed Hillary, the better of the two evils. It should let its readers to decide on their own. On another note, I think, Times' explicit endorsement enraged the ordinary folks.
17
Reminds me of the old joke (from LBJ's days): "They told me if I backed Sanders, the Democrats would be defeated and Trump would end up in the White House. Sure enough, I backed Sanders and the Democrats were defeated and Trump is in the White House!"
9
NYT is still the publication I go to when I want to get the real story. No one entity can be right all the time. After all, it is run by human beings. And we all know none of us are perfect. Keep up the great work.
8
Dear Sirs: That is all well and good. To state that the President-Elect is an enigma is accurate to the extent that his histrionic mien obscures what are likely some of the true motivating factors behind his candidacy and his victory. When you say that part of your mission is to hold to account power, you do, however, leave yourself open to the criticism that the authoritarian aspects of some of the U.S.'s alliances ignore travesties committed by them, and that there is not what could be termed vigorous pursuit of an alternative interpretation of the status quo, leading to condemnations which produce preventative action. What is needed as a start, on January 20th, is a concerted effort to bring all parties possessing nuclear weapons to the disarmament table in an effort to get rid of them. That includes the Zionists. If we truly wish to inhabit a great, safe, equitable world, then that is a step which must be taken by all concerned; that the U.S. recently signed off on such an effort spearheaded by the U.N. is a sign that the status quo reigns supreme, and brooks no quarter. One wonders if the next presidency will exhibit similar types of behavior. One hopes otherwise.
1
" You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness..." Well, if you're going to give Trump the same treatment you gave Obama, The Donald's in for a long, long honeymoon.
2
Not likely. Hours after this Letter to readers, the Times is still slanting the news to fit its preferred spin. Takes more than an "apology" to change the culture of an entire newsroom.
3
The upshot and it's constant front page declaration that Hillary had 85% or 95% chance of winning might have just cost her the election. Likewise the paths to victory. It was always a 50% chance of winning, not more, not less. Now we will all suffer the consequences.
5
Trump has very deeply polarized the nation. It will divide further, and I am afraid of violence.
Reporting will become extremely difficult; Trump has destroyed all respect for even the idea of truth having any value. With the power of the presidency, it will be increasingly hard to get information, or fact-check claims.
Trump appears to be getting ready to engage in pravda, with a very large and willing audience for it. The New York Times will not be able to go it alone ... responsible journalism across all media and outlets will be challenged, and potentially muzzled.
Reporting will become extremely difficult; Trump has destroyed all respect for even the idea of truth having any value. With the power of the presidency, it will be increasingly hard to get information, or fact-check claims.
Trump appears to be getting ready to engage in pravda, with a very large and willing audience for it. The New York Times will not be able to go it alone ... responsible journalism across all media and outlets will be challenged, and potentially muzzled.
17
Trump has not had enough time since he was elected to "polarize" the nation. It is extremist statements like this from so-called liberals that is polarizing the nation. We are a democracy and the election was valid. Seems like the adult children who cannot have their way - which has nothing to do with the good of the country as a whole - are stamping their feet and saying, "I don't want to". Just grow up.
7
Thank you for asserting your mission of "re dedicating" to impartial and unflinching journalism. It wasn't so in the last few months of the recent presidential campaign. My reading was that you were biased in favor of her candidacy against his. I respect NY Times and its long history outstanding journalism. I appreciate this open letter by Arthur Sulzberger and Dean Baquet, Publisher and Executive Editor.
7
The NY Times is no more 'fair and balanced' (ugh I hate the expression) than any other news outlet. Caveat emptor! We are all responsible for making our own decisions!
Here's what my mother used to say: if (fill in what ever name works for you) jumped in the river would you do it too?
The first thing i do when I read any articles you publish is to consider why you decided (in the multiverse of possible stories) to print it.
For those readers who want to be told what to think - this shouldn't be their newspaper! Having said that you guys have a responsibility to regularly remind everyone that items appearing as "news" on your front page are shaped ultimately by decisions made by your editors that are ultimately subjective.
All of us need to be constantly reminded that it's up to us to participate in what we believe by exposing ourselves to the widest range of ideas available. The NY Times could/should set the example by being THE forum for the widest possible variety of ideas.
If you want the NY Times to remain the 'beacon of light' it purports to be please consider my humble comments.
P.S. -- For the record I'm a long time subscriber; I have no intention of canceling now what I consider a primary stimulus of my daily reflection from which I'll happily draw my own conclusions!!!
Here's what my mother used to say: if (fill in what ever name works for you) jumped in the river would you do it too?
The first thing i do when I read any articles you publish is to consider why you decided (in the multiverse of possible stories) to print it.
For those readers who want to be told what to think - this shouldn't be their newspaper! Having said that you guys have a responsibility to regularly remind everyone that items appearing as "news" on your front page are shaped ultimately by decisions made by your editors that are ultimately subjective.
All of us need to be constantly reminded that it's up to us to participate in what we believe by exposing ourselves to the widest range of ideas available. The NY Times could/should set the example by being THE forum for the widest possible variety of ideas.
If you want the NY Times to remain the 'beacon of light' it purports to be please consider my humble comments.
P.S. -- For the record I'm a long time subscriber; I have no intention of canceling now what I consider a primary stimulus of my daily reflection from which I'll happily draw my own conclusions!!!
8
i just bought a subscription. yes, i agree with many of the posted criticisms here. Now, this paper and other reputable news organizations need to redouble their efforts to address those criticisms and inform their readers/listeners/watchers with the facts and perspectives to make the next votes (2018 primaries and mid terms) reflect the will of the electorate. I also agree that a half-hearted apology is not as productive in regaining trust as a full-throated one. I think Bernie's camp among others (an apology from media yes, but also from the DNC) is owed that and might help regain the trust of his followers going forward. My participation in an inauguration protest and my 2018 vote are only 1 voice, but my subscription to NYT is putting my money behind those who must speak truth to power for its citizenry. In an aside, I believe if there were an election do-over the result would be different. There isn't, so the next vote must be made with the value of the hindsight we have now. Keep reporting, I'll keep reading.
6
Greatly disappointed, and less trust in NYT's abilty to cover events in an accurate manner...
5
"The fundamental mission of Times journalism," means not using banner headlines to draw traffic to nytimes.com. It means being disciplined and not promoting "breaking news" stories to compete with CNN. The Times needs to be the newspaper it has been for decades, first and foremost, and to ensure that the longstanding policies that made the paper indispensable are enshrined in its print and digital versions. The election, because of the outcome, has led the Times to reach out in this manner. But what if Hillary had won? Would the editors even blink? Let's hope this unfortunate moment of self-reflection will not only be about the miscues, but very much about the way the Times moves forward on all stories -- print and digital.
4
I was appalled at the way the Times gave Donald Trump a pass. I personally - on your Facebook page AND in response to articles - had asked you REPEATEDLY to provide information on the lawsuits Trump is facing (e.g. the racketeering suit that goes to court in November) AND the tax fraud investigations currently underway in various jurisdictions regarding Trump Foundation. Complete SILENCE. Instead, after endorsing Mrs. Clinton, you chose to focus your late coverage on the SCAM involving Comey and questionable Wikileaks items...Where was your fair and balanced coverage then? How will you report on the Trump government going forward? Like I said many times before, your election coverage - particularly in the late stages of the campaign - was TABLOIDESQUE, an embarrassment for one of the biggest newpapers in the country.
14
Yes, yes, yes!
3
I do not know why some readers think they can blame a newspaper for allegedly encouraging some Clinton supporters not to vote because they thought Hillary had this election in the bag. Maybe we should blame those people for being lazy, complacent, taking their hard earned rights for granted? I saw those polls, too, yet I also knew I had to vote no matter what any poll said. I am glad I voted my conscience (for Clinton) because I'd be extremely embarrassed if I sat out this election.
That being said, I agree with many here that more investigative and educational reporting from throughout the U.S. is much needed. Just today I noticed that the article in NYT about the rise of hate crimes is buried in a small print under a bunch of other headlines on the new Trump administration. Rise in the hate crimes speaks volumes to me - why not dedicate a more prominent space to it?
That being said, I agree with many here that more investigative and educational reporting from throughout the U.S. is much needed. Just today I noticed that the article in NYT about the rise of hate crimes is buried in a small print under a bunch of other headlines on the new Trump administration. Rise in the hate crimes speaks volumes to me - why not dedicate a more prominent space to it?
3
The "rise of hate crimes" sounds like a story planted by diehards. The distinguishing and disturbing aspect of this election is the extremist language from the left, i.e., hatred, racism, misogyny, sexism, blah, blah, blah, when the trends were not conforming to their self-interested political correctness. Leadership that is too lax and lenient is as bad as leadership that is descried as "right-wing". Americans need to grow up politically, and Hollywood has made that almost impossible.
5
Dlud, are we existing in parallel universes? All the misogynistic, racist and xenophobic language I have heard in the last 12+ month came from the mouth of Donald Trump. Not from Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. So I do not know what extremist language from the left you are referring to. Apparently, Trump supporters do indeed exist in a complete fact-free environment.
8
No, Hillary in a rare moment of truth called the people who were on the "other" side, a "basket of deplorables." That was the true Hillary and her followers are the same, the effete elite. She would have been a disaster as President and more than 80% of Americans expressed dismay at the choice they were given of candidates for the Presidency in this election. It was a losing game from the get-go and adults in the country need to leave their strident pouches and work for the good of the country instead of using useless divisive language.
1
Maybe if you didn't hire columnists like Maureen Dowd, things might have been different.
4
Once you start reporting on what politicians in our government are DOING, and not just how they are ACTING, you will have my respect again. As it currently sits, I lump you in with the rest of the failed US press corps.
5
~largely enigmatic figure~
Largely because the NYT was lazy and gave Trump a kitchen pass when it came to investigative journalism of his many outlandish statements.
Between this weakness and the NYT being played by Cheney to sell the Iraq war the NYT has failed the population on two very historic issues.
I am afraid market pressures Trump journalism and FACTS. Hope all those clicks and graphics made you a lot of money.
Largely because the NYT was lazy and gave Trump a kitchen pass when it came to investigative journalism of his many outlandish statements.
Between this weakness and the NYT being played by Cheney to sell the Iraq war the NYT has failed the population on two very historic issues.
I am afraid market pressures Trump journalism and FACTS. Hope all those clicks and graphics made you a lot of money.
11
Not quite the admission and apology I was hoping for. I do see their advertising links are working well though.
4
Was that some sort of apology for the months and months of relentless Clinton promoting? More like mealy-mouthed mumbling "oopsy, but gosh, it wasn't really our fault." To be expected, I suppose, what with all the crow in your mouth.
10
I look to the NY Times for in-depth, quality reporting and analysis. Both would be strengthened by having reporters and the op ed writers spend more time outside of the NY "bubble."
9
One of NYT's columnists actually did get out in the country to personally learn what was going on to explain the rise of Trump. David Brooks was as critical of Trump as the rest of the columnists (still is) but he detected a rising tide of discontent among workers. As the campaign unfolded, the contrast between his column on the left of the page and Gary Krugman's on the right was a glaring example of earned insight versus hubris. Next time, more insight and less hubris, please.
3
The Times leaned to Hillary for the last six months. Your news reporting assumed her victory from the beginning of 2016. That is a big error.
Now you are critical of all of Trump - the good, the bad and the ugly.
Report the news.
Thanks.
Now you are critical of all of Trump - the good, the bad and the ugly.
Report the news.
Thanks.
4
The Times originally sent this letter to subscribers with the line "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign."
Why was this omitted in this published version here? This was a crucial claim that is worth debating.
Why was this omitted in this published version here? This was a crucial claim that is worth debating.
11
"Why was this omitted in this published version?"
My guess it would be because the reaction they got from their subscribers to a claim that was a bald-faced lie, shamed them into withdrawing it.
My guess it would be because the reaction they got from their subscribers to a claim that was a bald-faced lie, shamed them into withdrawing it.
6
This is one of my last times here. I canceled my subscription after the "Hilliary's Aide's Husband"s E-mails are Shadow on Hillary" stories. You wanted a horse race and you got one, by God. And all of us are the losers. Even you.
12
That the NY Times is a great world class newspaper is self evident. With respect to the election, everyone must do whatever can be done to correction this abomination.
7
Consider making the same promise, going forward, that Scientific American made to readers in its first issue, in 1845:
“In conducting this publication we shall endeavor to avoid all expressions of sentiment, on any sectional, sectarian, or political party subject; but we shall exercise a full share of independence, in the occasional exposure of ignorance and knavery.”
“In conducting this publication we shall endeavor to avoid all expressions of sentiment, on any sectional, sectarian, or political party subject; but we shall exercise a full share of independence, in the occasional exposure of ignorance and knavery.”
1
NY Times...you did a horrible job this election year. For months you had an outrageous poll on your homepage that did not reflect reality. I'm really considering unsubscribing after many years of support. Plus your opinion pieces were so biased. Don't get me started on Mr. Blow. I'm truly embarrassed for you.
7
End,
Mr. Blow is on the Opinion page. As is Ross Douthat. You may not like or agree with their opinions but opinions they are. They are not pretending to be factual reporting.
Please try to recognize the difference.
Mr. Blow is on the Opinion page. As is Ross Douthat. You may not like or agree with their opinions but opinions they are. They are not pretending to be factual reporting.
Please try to recognize the difference.
9
What exactly is this pap? This is how fascism comes to America--not with a bang but with a whimper.
8
Trump sold newspapers and Hillary did not. You put profits ahead of unbiased journalism, as did every other major news outlet. The difference is that we expect more from the NYT. Put some reporters in the reddest areas of the country and leave them there. Give us regular insights as to what is really going on in America, and not just the endless feedback loop of the views inside the Acela corridor.
13
You emailed me last Friday an earlier version of this STATEMENT which contained the sentence:
WE BELIEVE WE REPORTED ON BOTH CANDIDATES FAIRLY DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
While removing that sentence is an improvement I would hardly categorize this statement as the appropriate MEA CULPA.
Suggest you do some more soul searching.
WE BELIEVE WE REPORTED ON BOTH CANDIDATES FAIRLY DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
While removing that sentence is an improvement I would hardly categorize this statement as the appropriate MEA CULPA.
Suggest you do some more soul searching.
20
Wait, what? The Times blows the biggest story since who-knows-when, and instead of an apology, the EIC & Publisher are going to "rededicate" themselves to the "fundamental mission of Times journalism"!? Uh...what about trying to figure out how the "newspaper of record" so badly screwed up? What about -- and this is radical, I know -- maybe apologizing to the readers who your newspaper misled?
Reading the Times throughout the 2016 general election campaign would lead the average American to believe that Hillary Clinton's election was inevitable. But that was flat out wrong, and it may have impacted whether voters went to the polls, as in, "if she is going to win anyway, is it that important that I vote, too?"
It's funny how journalists draw the parallel and call this a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment without actually reflecting on how badly their forebears screwed up that analysis in 1948. It doesn't let modern journalists off the hook that this was not the first big election story the press has completely bolluxed up. Here we are 78 years later and it would appear modern journalists are making the very same mistakes -- and still not admitting them or apologizing for them.
Reading the Times throughout the 2016 general election campaign would lead the average American to believe that Hillary Clinton's election was inevitable. But that was flat out wrong, and it may have impacted whether voters went to the polls, as in, "if she is going to win anyway, is it that important that I vote, too?"
It's funny how journalists draw the parallel and call this a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment without actually reflecting on how badly their forebears screwed up that analysis in 1948. It doesn't let modern journalists off the hook that this was not the first big election story the press has completely bolluxed up. Here we are 78 years later and it would appear modern journalists are making the very same mistakes -- and still not admitting them or apologizing for them.
16
I was extremely disappointed at the New York Time's failure in reporting The Bernie Sanders campaign during the primaries. It was obvious that he didn't get his fair share of coverage and it was heart wrenching to see one of the few news outlets I trust in the US being so one sided.
17
Hm , I am wondering what the intent of the article is: an internal reflection (not deep enough), an improvement program (not concrete enough), an apology (not clear enough), ...?
However, I agree with many commenters that a political, gender, race, religion, and nationality variety in your team(s) is needed to deliver the made promise. It will be rough, but it's neccessary, and your readers will appreciate it.
However, I agree with many commenters that a political, gender, race, religion, and nationality variety in your team(s) is needed to deliver the made promise. It will be rough, but it's neccessary, and your readers will appreciate it.
4
You guys blew it plain and simple. Report the facts, not feelings.
8
This letter from the executive director adds insult to injury.
17
Please Please Please spend your $$ on great reporting. Who What When Where Why and How, plus a variety of wise opinions-clearly marked as opinion. Now more than ever it will be important for the American people to learn the truth and the new administration appears to not be too fond of the press and investigative reporters. Big, complicated, hard-to-solve issues like the environment, education, the economy and complex foreign policy were not discussed in detail by either main candidate, just a lot of negativity and name-calling. There may be a greater need to help explain/educate about how our government works, as it does not seem to be taught in schools and the average person is seriously uninformed about how their own country 'works.' Keep on reporting
7
My guess...
About 30 million of us voted against HRC and nor for Trump. Another 30 million of us are simply deplorable.
I don't blame the NYT or any other news organization. Who would dare to predict and report these facts.
About 30 million of us voted against HRC and nor for Trump. Another 30 million of us are simply deplorable.
I don't blame the NYT or any other news organization. Who would dare to predict and report these facts.
3
The NYTimes was not unbiased and neutral in this election. Period. I subscribe to a number of news sources, and read them, with amusement. No reputable news outlet should have missed what was coming on such a grand scale, unless they wanted to miss it. Bad reporting, plain and simple.
6
When a publication openly promotes an issue (or political candidate) and then states they are "objective", to say this stretches credibility is an understatement.
13
I commented yesterday in the harshest possible terms about the Times' failure to stop the rise of Fascism. I stand by that indictment, but want to be loud and clear that it is precisely because I recognize that this is the duty of the press in a free society that I want you to STAND FIRMER in your role as the last great paper of record. I am renewing my subscripyion, my wife is subscribing, we are both subscribing to our local paper, and I will continue to turn to your paper daily for the broad and deep diversity and intelligence of your entire staff.
14
Thank you gentlemen We stand to loose far more than the election unless we start thinking and discussing current events.
3
The NYT placed a lot of faith in the Upshot win/loss likelihood prognosticator which, for the entire race, predicted a Hillary win by a large margin. This having been an online version front page staple for so long I figured the editorial staff had a lot of faith in this as well. I am a loyal NYT subscriber, however, the Upshot reputation is dead to me as well as other statistics engines and 'gurus' e.g. Nate Silver, as not only did they get it wrong but were orders of magnitude wrong it seems. This has the potential to harm the reputation of the NYT as well.
I am hoping the NYT will re-think this 'fast food' style of reporting so as not to boil-down nuanced and complex issues to digestible digits for mass consumption.
Statistics are great for measuring the performance of software or baseball players but where human behavior is concerned statistical evaluation is fatally flawed.
I love you guys, please fix this.
I am hoping the NYT will re-think this 'fast food' style of reporting so as not to boil-down nuanced and complex issues to digestible digits for mass consumption.
Statistics are great for measuring the performance of software or baseball players but where human behavior is concerned statistical evaluation is fatally flawed.
I love you guys, please fix this.
6
Umm..."rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor..." and yet is was both fear and especially favor that lead you to deliver false polls and puff pieces month after month, misleading many voters and who knows, perhaps causing many to stay home on the 8th? Why not stay home since according to the NYT's 85% probability, she's obviously going to win anyway!
10
As a subscriber, I was deeply disappointed by NYT presidential campaign coverage.
Clinton vs. Trump presented the starkest policy contrast in memory. But the NYT sent voters to the polls knowing little about it. Instead, Trump's demagogy drowned out Clinton's thoughtfulness, and the Times aided and abetted the process, right along with lesser news outlets.
Clinton published page after page of proposals on how she would tackle a wide range of issues as President. Her thoughtful, accountable approach to public policy making was in my view the glory of her candidacy.
How much in-depth reporting on the candidates' policy positions did NYT readers actually get? Very little. Day after day, front page space was spent on the political dogfight, trivia about voice, gaffe, persona. Worse were multiple stories about what reporters guessed would happen next. Who decided that what voters really needed to know required devoting story after story to Hillary's unconsequential email mistake, much more than her proposals for major investments in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and converting our economy to green energy, creating thousands of well-paying blue-collar jobs? Or her strategies to lower drug prices, support families in caring for children and elders, provide debt-free college?
Now we hear ad nauseam that Democrats offered nothing to the working class. Wrong. Clinton talked and talked about her proposals to help them. The press just didn't cover the story, NYT included.
Clinton vs. Trump presented the starkest policy contrast in memory. But the NYT sent voters to the polls knowing little about it. Instead, Trump's demagogy drowned out Clinton's thoughtfulness, and the Times aided and abetted the process, right along with lesser news outlets.
Clinton published page after page of proposals on how she would tackle a wide range of issues as President. Her thoughtful, accountable approach to public policy making was in my view the glory of her candidacy.
How much in-depth reporting on the candidates' policy positions did NYT readers actually get? Very little. Day after day, front page space was spent on the political dogfight, trivia about voice, gaffe, persona. Worse were multiple stories about what reporters guessed would happen next. Who decided that what voters really needed to know required devoting story after story to Hillary's unconsequential email mistake, much more than her proposals for major investments in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and converting our economy to green energy, creating thousands of well-paying blue-collar jobs? Or her strategies to lower drug prices, support families in caring for children and elders, provide debt-free college?
Now we hear ad nauseam that Democrats offered nothing to the working class. Wrong. Clinton talked and talked about her proposals to help them. The press just didn't cover the story, NYT included.
26
Thank you for this, the most coherent and incisive comment I've read here yet.
5
I appreciate your thoughtful comments and could not agree more.
1
Here's an article in Vox that provides some quantitative data on the amount of coverage the NYT devoted to Clinton's emails vs. Trump's proposal to ban Muslim immigrants and other issues.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/15/13564522/trump-muslim-...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/15/13564522/trump-muslim-...
The only reason for an apology was the NY Times got caught. Like a criminal who apologizes for his or her actions after getting caught and convicted, the NY Times says 'now we will cover Trump's presidency fairly'. Let's give the NY Times more latitude than the Trump protesters and wait and see.
2
The reason I canceled my subscription was simple:
The Times got the election dead wrong. Your polling was way off. While I am an unapologetic progressive, I favor facts over rhetoric. I don't need my news outlets to validate my beliefs. I needed the Times to be in touch with the facts and the situation. If a newspaper is out of touch, then the "news" is no longer "fit to print". In other words: How can you distinguish fact from opinion if you're out of touch?
The Times got the election dead wrong. Your polling was way off. While I am an unapologetic progressive, I favor facts over rhetoric. I don't need my news outlets to validate my beliefs. I needed the Times to be in touch with the facts and the situation. If a newspaper is out of touch, then the "news" is no longer "fit to print". In other words: How can you distinguish fact from opinion if you're out of touch?
11
Don't know if it's fair to blame the NYT; I suspect that the vast majority of Times subscribers did not vote for the clown.
3
In reply to Willy in NY
First; I am a Times subscriber and I voted for him.
Second; He is not a clown, he is President-Elect of the United States.
First; I am a Times subscriber and I voted for him.
Second; He is not a clown, he is President-Elect of the United States.
3
I also voted for him. I am a times subscriber and have three degrees.
John and Here -- he is the president elect, the United States has elected a "clown," and you are here and proud telling us you voted for him.
You aren't providing any argument that he isn't a "clown;" only that you two voted for him.
"Clown" is not a helpful characterization -- does "a neo-fascist peddling hatred, ignorance, crudity and white-power revanchism" suit better?
And at this moment, only a few days after the election -- do you think that any of Trump's claims or promises will be kept?
You aren't providing any argument that he isn't a "clown;" only that you two voted for him.
"Clown" is not a helpful characterization -- does "a neo-fascist peddling hatred, ignorance, crudity and white-power revanchism" suit better?
And at this moment, only a few days after the election -- do you think that any of Trump's claims or promises will be kept?
6
The majority of white America has never really accepted our black president and they continue to shamelessly reject the changing demographics of our country. White Anglo-Saxon men have controlled our country since its inception and “others” in charge is antithetical to what whites have known and have been taught. Ironically (and sadly) it was not the white voters who put Trump and his right wing cabal in power, it was the Americans of color and young Americans who stupidly refused to vote that determined this horrendous outcome.
Just yesterday my daughter (thirty-something) was walking her dog and while trying to hold her dog back from crossing the street a young white couple driving by sneered and shouted out,“ you stupid Mexican”. My daughter was in disbelief. She is a well-educated, kind and very attractive woman and has never been subjected to such blatant disdain. It was as if they were empowered and they were going to let it be known. This is no coincidence; this is what Trump has reignited in much of white America. I truly fear what lies ahead for all Americans.
Just yesterday my daughter (thirty-something) was walking her dog and while trying to hold her dog back from crossing the street a young white couple driving by sneered and shouted out,“ you stupid Mexican”. My daughter was in disbelief. She is a well-educated, kind and very attractive woman and has never been subjected to such blatant disdain. It was as if they were empowered and they were going to let it be known. This is no coincidence; this is what Trump has reignited in much of white America. I truly fear what lies ahead for all Americans.
12
I am as devoted a reader of the NY times as can be. The manner (and graphical format) in which the paper consistently and emphatically predicted Clinton's victory in The Upshot column is a betrayal of my trust, confidence and the energy and effort I spend on the website and reading the paper edition. I was really counting on better and more accurate information.
6
You keep digging and I'll keep buying. Stay on him.
1
"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,".
And that is exactly what you have NOT done for the past 18 months.
What used to be THE journal of reference has become an unashamed sycophant and zealot to glorify the one you called (with no sense of ridicule at all) the "most qualified candidate ever" ! You NEVER covered any of the multitude of releases of Wikileaks which added to the amounts of already known Clinton's turpitude, deviousness and malfeasance (for which 75 % of Americans do NOT trust her and find her dishonest). But to NYT : all was fine and glorified. At the same time you took any word you could out of Trump's discourses to distort them as much as you could and run them on front page banners for days at the time. All the while : NOTHING about the 100 million "speech" payments that Bill Clinton secured through Hillary's "efforts" with her foundation (slush fund being a better description..)
What shocked me the most in all this dishonesty is that there was not a SINGLE "journalist" at NYT who was revolted by this despicable distortion of truth. Journalists used to report news, yours have, collectively, stopped doing that. How could they possibly look at themselves in the mirror when they got up in the morning?
Shame on you and on all your guild of "journalists" who have no sense anymore of what ethical and deontological conduct is.
And that is exactly what you have NOT done for the past 18 months.
What used to be THE journal of reference has become an unashamed sycophant and zealot to glorify the one you called (with no sense of ridicule at all) the "most qualified candidate ever" ! You NEVER covered any of the multitude of releases of Wikileaks which added to the amounts of already known Clinton's turpitude, deviousness and malfeasance (for which 75 % of Americans do NOT trust her and find her dishonest). But to NYT : all was fine and glorified. At the same time you took any word you could out of Trump's discourses to distort them as much as you could and run them on front page banners for days at the time. All the while : NOTHING about the 100 million "speech" payments that Bill Clinton secured through Hillary's "efforts" with her foundation (slush fund being a better description..)
What shocked me the most in all this dishonesty is that there was not a SINGLE "journalist" at NYT who was revolted by this despicable distortion of truth. Journalists used to report news, yours have, collectively, stopped doing that. How could they possibly look at themselves in the mirror when they got up in the morning?
Shame on you and on all your guild of "journalists" who have no sense anymore of what ethical and deontological conduct is.
8
What I heard come right out of Trump's mouth with my very own ears, and in context, was enough to make my decision without any media filter. I'll take untrusted over bigoted every day of the week.
And I hate to tell you, charging money for speeches is perfectly legal. Just like a billionaire using loopholes to dodge taxes for 20 years. And it doesn't matter if 100% of Americans believe them guilty of wrongdoing -- that's doesn't mean it's true. Show me a charge that sticks after due process though the courts, and I'll believe it. I might even have a chance to do that soon -- I believe a fraud trial is coming up at the end of the month.
And I hate to tell you, charging money for speeches is perfectly legal. Just like a billionaire using loopholes to dodge taxes for 20 years. And it doesn't matter if 100% of Americans believe them guilty of wrongdoing -- that's doesn't mean it's true. Show me a charge that sticks after due process though the courts, and I'll believe it. I might even have a chance to do that soon -- I believe a fraud trial is coming up at the end of the month.
3
I'm a longtime NYT subscriber, having grown up with this paper. Your election coverage was deeply, fatally flawed and you have done the American people and the international community a grave disservice.
This letter is misleading, especially the (ostensibly) soul-searching questions you ask of yourselves. The 'pied piper' wikileak makes it clear that elevating the extreme, rightwing candidate Trump was a deliberate Clinton campaign strategy and the NYT coverage followed suit. It backfired horribly.
Please, we need honesty, integrity and RESPONSIBILITY more than ever right now. You owe it to us, our nation and the world.
This letter is misleading, especially the (ostensibly) soul-searching questions you ask of yourselves. The 'pied piper' wikileak makes it clear that elevating the extreme, rightwing candidate Trump was a deliberate Clinton campaign strategy and the NYT coverage followed suit. It backfired horribly.
Please, we need honesty, integrity and RESPONSIBILITY more than ever right now. You owe it to us, our nation and the world.
9
The comments that I am reading today remind me of another dark time in this country's history when Joseph McCarthy led his charge against American citizens that he deemed to be Communists. But for the free press, and reporters such as Edward R. Murrow, McCarthy would have carried on for many more years. So I say today to my fellow Americans, do not "hang" the NYT or or other media outlets that you abhor, because the views that you express today, may be out of favor tomorrow.
2
Keep up the good work.
3
I am a daily NYT reader for approximately 40 years. It is, and always has been, a great newspaper. It is a bit distressing to see that some of the reporters are no longer writing daily pieces, but unfortunately I guess that's the economics of the news business these days.
Yet it is particularly incumbent on the NYT and other credible news sources to report accurately the news, and thereby allow readers and, indeed everyone, to be able to rely on a fair-minded, objective source for news. To see the NYT so unfairly criticized is upsetting, and those who attack it are, in my opinion, undermining their own freedoms. But that's life in America these days. When people vote for a billionaire who has never expressed the slightest care for their economic plight prior to this campaign, hoping he will ameliorate their financial woes...I think they're going to be in for a rude awakening. Yet even then they will likely not recognize the true source of the damage, their own naive and wrongheaded vote for Donald Trump.
Yet it is particularly incumbent on the NYT and other credible news sources to report accurately the news, and thereby allow readers and, indeed everyone, to be able to rely on a fair-minded, objective source for news. To see the NYT so unfairly criticized is upsetting, and those who attack it are, in my opinion, undermining their own freedoms. But that's life in America these days. When people vote for a billionaire who has never expressed the slightest care for their economic plight prior to this campaign, hoping he will ameliorate their financial woes...I think they're going to be in for a rude awakening. Yet even then they will likely not recognize the true source of the damage, their own naive and wrongheaded vote for Donald Trump.
9
And even more, for the same GOTP Congressional incumbents that got us into this mess. I can't figure out what they want with contradictions like that. Same as when my friend's poodle growls at me while wagging her tail -- which end do I believe?
2
The amount of pixels and ink spilt on breathless horse-race tracking has denigrated and disgraced what used to be called the media.
Next time, commit to 90% reporting on the political issues, and leave the horse-race to 538.com.
Next time, commit to 90% reporting on the political issues, and leave the horse-race to 538.com.
12
Amen. The entire media universe went horse-race crazy. I believed the polls, but that's neither here nor there. I still voted, I made my choice, and I don't blame the polls. My disappointment isn't with the polls. It's with the result that we the people made. I'll vote again next time, and that's what we do. It's clear this nation is so huge, so diverse, so diffuse that nobody really can "poll" what's actually happening. That occurs through listening. My NYT complaint is not only the horse-race aspect but what I saw as a false equivalency; the paper of record didn't strongly call out the foolishness right from the get-go. And, as far as I'm concerned, the unwise, ill-conceived private e-mail server issue in no way equals serial lying, evident racist dog whistles, abusive words toward so many groups. I felt that frequently the NYT used the Peewee Herman approach: I know he is, but what about her! And not a steady drumbeat of issues, a regular, daily deep dive into issues. The NYT can point to enterprise reporting on big issues, yes; but we longed for a daily page of issues-oriented stories. Saying "Stronger Together," or "Lock her Up" isn't an issue; send your teams out to get behind those slogans, find out what the candidates' vision is. If they don't articulate it clearly, hiding behind bromides or accelerant, it's the NYT's job to tell us.
2
I had to go outside of the US, to El País and the BBC, for more in-depth coverage of the candidate's platforms, not to mention the various charges, etc. against Trump.
NYT: You must not allow the Twitter sphere to dominate. That is your job. To prevent the Twittersphere from dominating and NOT joining click bait journalism where adjectives substitute for facts.
The problem is that the right-wing machine is relentless and never gives up, whereas the center-liberal press worries about "cooperating," giving people a chance and being fair (which has amounted to letting the right punch you in the face). Where has that gotten us? We have plenty of right leaning media sources. You need to base what you report on evidence and in-depth investigation, but you need to go after the story of the corrupt right just as relentlessly and passionately as they go after us. Where is the Trump version of Wikileaks? The NYT and others have been led around by the nose-always reacting and following the crowd-not following your own generated leads.
If Trump had won the popular vote but lost the election it would never have been put to bed. Yet here we are again, liberals being the nice, reasonable guys while our pockets get picked and our rights melt away. It can and will get worse.
So do your job, because no one else will.
NYT: You must not allow the Twitter sphere to dominate. That is your job. To prevent the Twittersphere from dominating and NOT joining click bait journalism where adjectives substitute for facts.
The problem is that the right-wing machine is relentless and never gives up, whereas the center-liberal press worries about "cooperating," giving people a chance and being fair (which has amounted to letting the right punch you in the face). Where has that gotten us? We have plenty of right leaning media sources. You need to base what you report on evidence and in-depth investigation, but you need to go after the story of the corrupt right just as relentlessly and passionately as they go after us. Where is the Trump version of Wikileaks? The NYT and others have been led around by the nose-always reacting and following the crowd-not following your own generated leads.
If Trump had won the popular vote but lost the election it would never have been put to bed. Yet here we are again, liberals being the nice, reasonable guys while our pockets get picked and our rights melt away. It can and will get worse.
So do your job, because no one else will.
16
The NYT is a life raft of sanity. This reader is grateful on a daily basis. We've always lived in places too rural to have the Times delivered but availability on line has changed our lives immeasurably. Thank you. We are with you all the way.
5
Dear Mr Sulzberger and Mr Baquet,
Thank you for your letter.
It seems that the Democratic Party position is that the rights of certain minorities must be protected. Indeed, that the rights of minority groups such as illegal immigrants, homosexuals, transvestites, cross dressers, bisexuals, Muslims, African-Americans and women of color must specifically be protected.
Are the legal protections afforded to all Americans by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights truly insufficient to protect the rights of these minorities?
This seems to be the liberal position and voters for Trump rejected it.
Thank you for your letter.
It seems that the Democratic Party position is that the rights of certain minorities must be protected. Indeed, that the rights of minority groups such as illegal immigrants, homosexuals, transvestites, cross dressers, bisexuals, Muslims, African-Americans and women of color must specifically be protected.
Are the legal protections afforded to all Americans by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights truly insufficient to protect the rights of these minorities?
This seems to be the liberal position and voters for Trump rejected it.
6
Mr. Murray:
Actually, the American people rejected it.
Sincerely,
Here
Actually, the American people rejected it.
Sincerely,
Here
2
In reply to Here There.
No argument from me!
No argument from me!
Well, it's not like anyone has ever discriminated against those groups or harassed them mercilessly just for existing in the years since those documents were written... Uh, except they really did do those things, and are still trying. Like arranging the local voting hours and stations so "those people" have to wait in line for hours while others breeze in and out.
I have no desire to return to a world where "No [fill in group] need apply." What makes you so certain you'll always be on the "us" team, and never among the "thems" needing protection? Maybe if you protect them when they need it, they'll return the favor when you do...
I have no desire to return to a world where "No [fill in group] need apply." What makes you so certain you'll always be on the "us" team, and never among the "thems" needing protection? Maybe if you protect them when they need it, they'll return the favor when you do...
2
I cancelled my subscription yesterday.
After more than 20 years a faithful reader just could not justify paying for NYT biased opinions and unfair treatment towards people who think differently.
I always admired the NYT quote "all the news that's fit to print".
I am disappointed that somewhere in recent years it became "only the news expressing NYT views are printed".
After more than 20 years a faithful reader just could not justify paying for NYT biased opinions and unfair treatment towards people who think differently.
I always admired the NYT quote "all the news that's fit to print".
I am disappointed that somewhere in recent years it became "only the news expressing NYT views are printed".
6
Was that supposed to be an apology? Oh well, why would NT Times cares for those "uneducated" readers anyway? Forget us and continue pandering to the "smart" ones, don't you think? Best of luck driveby media.
8
These comments sections were a big part of the echo chamber problem for the NYT. I felt certain that Hillary's campaign and left-leaning SuperPacs, Correct the Record for example, co-opted the comments section by their paid shills flooding stories with pro-Hillary comments. And even the NYT Picks seemed biased toward Hillary.
The comments section, for me, are one of the best parts of the NYT. Unfortunately, during the campaign it felt like a campaign arm for the Hillary campaign. Please, next election cycle make sure the campaigns don't co-opt them. We need divergent voices.
The comments section, for me, are one of the best parts of the NYT. Unfortunately, during the campaign it felt like a campaign arm for the Hillary campaign. Please, next election cycle make sure the campaigns don't co-opt them. We need divergent voices.
10
In reply to ADCM in AK.
Very well put; especially your last paragraph.
Very well put; especially your last paragraph.
I have a strong suspicion that the creaky platform and green check mark system, which the former public editor promised us was soon to be abolished, was retained to allow the green check mark crowd, most of which were pro-Hillary, to dominate the debate. Watch, come February, the times will upgrade to a platform that is marginally better.
1
All US media, including the NYTimes need to look inward and figure out how and why they gave so much free coverage to Mr. Trump. but took so long to deride his rude actions and blabber.
At the same time those media organizations need to figure out how and why they ignored Bernie Sanders when he was holding rallies that drew 30 to 30 thousand people. Had Sen, Sander's remarkable campaign been covered with the attention it deserved, those in the Democratic party who fiddled with the votes cast and relied on superdelegates (party insiders) to nominate Secretary Clinton would not have succeeded.
Sen. Sanders would have been the nominee and would have trounced Mr. Trump on November 8.
At the same time those media organizations need to figure out how and why they ignored Bernie Sanders when he was holding rallies that drew 30 to 30 thousand people. Had Sen, Sander's remarkable campaign been covered with the attention it deserved, those in the Democratic party who fiddled with the votes cast and relied on superdelegates (party insiders) to nominate Secretary Clinton would not have succeeded.
Sen. Sanders would have been the nominee and would have trounced Mr. Trump on November 8.
15
Francine, superdelegates didn't nominate her. She won more pledged delegates and votes, which is how Dem primaries have been won for DECADES. Supers only break ties. And there is no valid proof for you claim about rigging except on progressive blogs. Can we leave conspiracy theory to Trump and the alt-right?
And let's say he did lose only because the media and DNC played dirty. You think that means he should advance to a race where his opponents will play a million times dirtier???? Putin wanted Trump elected. I'm sure Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine's private emails would have been all ponies and unicorns when Assange leaked them to aliente Clinton supporters. Divide and conquer -- see how that works? And you think Trump, the RNC and Superpacs would stick to dignified policy debates if Bernie were nominated? Slime is what they do. They hanged John Kerry on the "scandal" of a heroic record as a volunteer combat veteran. Integrity is no protection from people who just MAKE STUFF UP. You love Bernie. To the opposition, he's,the devil. Just not the Clinton devil.
They just didn't trash him while he helped them destroy Clinton. As nominee, he'd have been spared NOTHING. He'd still be trying to climb out from under the mud to make his concession. Read some election history from the 1980's to now. You don't jkow these people. I do. That the RNC wanted to run against Bernie means they knew how to destroy him quickly.
And let's say he did lose only because the media and DNC played dirty. You think that means he should advance to a race where his opponents will play a million times dirtier???? Putin wanted Trump elected. I'm sure Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine's private emails would have been all ponies and unicorns when Assange leaked them to aliente Clinton supporters. Divide and conquer -- see how that works? And you think Trump, the RNC and Superpacs would stick to dignified policy debates if Bernie were nominated? Slime is what they do. They hanged John Kerry on the "scandal" of a heroic record as a volunteer combat veteran. Integrity is no protection from people who just MAKE STUFF UP. You love Bernie. To the opposition, he's,the devil. Just not the Clinton devil.
They just didn't trash him while he helped them destroy Clinton. As nominee, he'd have been spared NOTHING. He'd still be trying to climb out from under the mud to make his concession. Read some election history from the 1980's to now. You don't jkow these people. I do. That the RNC wanted to run against Bernie means they knew how to destroy him quickly.
3
In reply to Naomi in New England.
"You have passion, but you don't persuade"!
"You have passion, but you don't persuade"!
1
For readers who understand that the New York Times continues to let us down by normalizing what has happened to the country:
Please take a look right now at the top of the main page of the Washington Post. That newspaper is doing its job much better. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for now. They're reporting that Trump is being excoriated over Bannon; that Trump wanted Bannon as his Chief of Staff.
They're also reporting Trump's election in a more proper context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Please take a look right now at the top of the main page of the Washington Post. That newspaper is doing its job much better. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good for now. They're reporting that Trump is being excoriated over Bannon; that Trump wanted Bannon as his Chief of Staff.
They're also reporting Trump's election in a more proper context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
11
What's interesting to me is that You decided to acknowledge and be vulnerable about it. I just love it. I wish that Same strength of character for the press of my country.
What's interesting again, is that the Times is so professional, so hardworking and so broad that even Its critics love reading it, lolll.
Keep it up, Guys.
Thank You as well, I'm learning so much from your hard work. Thank You.
What's interesting again, is that the Times is so professional, so hardworking and so broad that even Its critics love reading it, lolll.
Keep it up, Guys.
Thank You as well, I'm learning so much from your hard work. Thank You.
The headlines of the NYT are the first thing I check every morning and the last thing I peruse before I shut the light and go to sleep. Don't ever lie to me NYT to keep me a customer. It's my belief that what I see and read in the NYT is as close to the truth that's going to be published in mainstream media and I am grateful for that. Thank you thank you thank you.
2
I'm seeing a lot of commenters excoriating the NYT for being too liberal, and a lot of others complaining that the paper is too conservative. You must be doing at least something right.
But I do agree with one common theme: Ditch the percent probabilities. Statistical models are often useful, but mainly to people who understand the mathematical details. And not every statistician quoted by media was using the same model.
At the end of the day, Dewey did not defeat Truman. So stop apologizing for erroneous predictions, and start scrutinizing the incoming administration very, very closely. That's your job. So is printing editorials. Improve your data collection, for sure. But of all the things a newspaper might want to apologize for, incorrect election prognostication is pretty far down the list.
Finally, for those readers who prefer to read a newspaper with a right-wing editorial slant: You have plenty to choose from. Try the Indianapolis Star for starters.
But I do agree with one common theme: Ditch the percent probabilities. Statistical models are often useful, but mainly to people who understand the mathematical details. And not every statistician quoted by media was using the same model.
At the end of the day, Dewey did not defeat Truman. So stop apologizing for erroneous predictions, and start scrutinizing the incoming administration very, very closely. That's your job. So is printing editorials. Improve your data collection, for sure. But of all the things a newspaper might want to apologize for, incorrect election prognostication is pretty far down the list.
Finally, for those readers who prefer to read a newspaper with a right-wing editorial slant: You have plenty to choose from. Try the Indianapolis Star for starters.
3
I think you're yourself refused to understand the reason why people drop NY Times and pretended to believe that people simply wanted to read right-wing propagandas alone. Don't worry, you are not alone because millions of people out there still do the same. The arrogant pushed people closers to Trump and he should thank you all for the hard works. Don't forget, Trump won those Blue States as good and you should wonder why instead of pretending otherwise.
Saying that someone is moderate because they attract fire from left and right is logically a fallacy. If it's any consolation, Bill O'Reilly does the same thing.
1
I live in Reno, NV, and I love the blue, elitist, intellectual bubble I came from on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I keep in digital touch with it for my own sanity. I also love seeing the big moon outside my window, so there are many beautiful things about the Wild Wild West, as it were. The intelligence of the people isn't one of them. I talk to the geese. I need the NYT to continue investigative journalism. You don't need to thank us. You need to keep doing work, where we can thank you.
7
Dear Smug Editors,
Here's a step in getting back in our good graces: keep Kristoff, Blow and Collins, dump the rest, starting with Dowd. Once she could write to the heart of the matter, now she only serves up bile and her biased family, so who needs it?
You've become overrated and can't see your flaws NYT, it's time to shake off the self deluding praise and go out and REPORT again. You got this election wrong from the start, so what else are you ignoring or simply missing? Wake up, because the new creep-in-chief is about to come after the press in a big way.
Here's a step in getting back in our good graces: keep Kristoff, Blow and Collins, dump the rest, starting with Dowd. Once she could write to the heart of the matter, now she only serves up bile and her biased family, so who needs it?
You've become overrated and can't see your flaws NYT, it's time to shake off the self deluding praise and go out and REPORT again. You got this election wrong from the start, so what else are you ignoring or simply missing? Wake up, because the new creep-in-chief is about to come after the press in a big way.
9
"It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly."
Thank you for your service -- we need your voice now more than ever.
Thank you for your service -- we need your voice now more than ever.
3
I signed up for an additional subscription out of loyalty to your institution. But I was extremely disappointed in your coverage of the campaign and its miasmic, East Coast haze. I've come to find commentators like David Brooks unreliable, for they spend too much time polling others at cocktail parties who think just like themselves.
11
The NYT is a great newspaper and I'll keep subscribing and reading. However it is a newspaper that reflects the urban American point of view with little understanding or apparent reporting from other areas of the country not bordered by an ocean.
To other readers I suggest remembering that it isn't just The Times but the New York Times. It's a regional paper in some way trying to carry the journalistic load left by the death of newspapers across this country. Like it or not we need to hold fast to the first amendment and encourage those committed to real journalism at NYT, WAPO etc. To not just get angry and retreat to echo chamber internet sites ---- none of which I read issuing any apologies or acknowledgements.
I don't fault the NYT for writing about Clinton as the sane candidate with actual proposals. I fault the NYT for not finding and reporting on the success of the methods of the PT Barnum campaign that won the White House. News outlets and internet across the country gave this man free publicity for month after month. That Hillary Clinton did as well as she did in the onslaught of Comey, Assange and the barrage of repeated lies (which were the content of the aforementioned free Trump publicity) is remarkable.
What the Trump folks will hope is that we will be so shocked and humbled that we will be quiet and not look closely. We need to stay alert and be noisy --- early and often. And we need good journalists to continue with us on this road. It's a long road.
To other readers I suggest remembering that it isn't just The Times but the New York Times. It's a regional paper in some way trying to carry the journalistic load left by the death of newspapers across this country. Like it or not we need to hold fast to the first amendment and encourage those committed to real journalism at NYT, WAPO etc. To not just get angry and retreat to echo chamber internet sites ---- none of which I read issuing any apologies or acknowledgements.
I don't fault the NYT for writing about Clinton as the sane candidate with actual proposals. I fault the NYT for not finding and reporting on the success of the methods of the PT Barnum campaign that won the White House. News outlets and internet across the country gave this man free publicity for month after month. That Hillary Clinton did as well as she did in the onslaught of Comey, Assange and the barrage of repeated lies (which were the content of the aforementioned free Trump publicity) is remarkable.
What the Trump folks will hope is that we will be so shocked and humbled that we will be quiet and not look closely. We need to stay alert and be noisy --- early and often. And we need good journalists to continue with us on this road. It's a long road.
14
Thank you for writing that. Nicely put.
1
New York Times:
Your pathetic coverage of Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon to a high-level White House position informs your readers that the letter you write here isn't worth the bytes it's posted with.
Normalizing a white supremacist's presence as "chief strategist" to an incoming president is truly bizarre.
Step outside this sham of journalistic neutrality and balance, or your readers will continue to name your participation in normalizing fascism.
You need not wonder any longer: Now is the time to act to stop fascism.
Now is the time to spell out for your readers what has taken place.
Now is the time to suspend your commitment to preserving the order that perpetuates elites' hold on power and narrative.
Now is the time to take great risks.
Many of your readers understand that you believe you've acted responsibly by protecting the status quo, and that you continue to believe you must protect us by keeping the veil intact, by continuing to assist with maintaining the world order.
Don't do it. Now is the time to be bold. Stability is already crumbling. Why not act to name it and help craft what emerges? Don't participate in normalizing fascism. You're not going to continue to exist in current form if you do. Take the chance and do the right thing. It'll be worth it no matter the outcome.
Your pathetic coverage of Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon to a high-level White House position informs your readers that the letter you write here isn't worth the bytes it's posted with.
Normalizing a white supremacist's presence as "chief strategist" to an incoming president is truly bizarre.
Step outside this sham of journalistic neutrality and balance, or your readers will continue to name your participation in normalizing fascism.
You need not wonder any longer: Now is the time to act to stop fascism.
Now is the time to spell out for your readers what has taken place.
Now is the time to suspend your commitment to preserving the order that perpetuates elites' hold on power and narrative.
Now is the time to take great risks.
Many of your readers understand that you believe you've acted responsibly by protecting the status quo, and that you continue to believe you must protect us by keeping the veil intact, by continuing to assist with maintaining the world order.
Don't do it. Now is the time to be bold. Stability is already crumbling. Why not act to name it and help craft what emerges? Don't participate in normalizing fascism. You're not going to continue to exist in current form if you do. Take the chance and do the right thing. It'll be worth it no matter the outcome.
10
These polls were very addictive and gave me great comfort, and I'm an analytics professional! However, I knew "likely voters" was an Achilles heel of these models. When Paul Krugman wrote to get out and vote no matter whether you think your state is blue or not, I knew he was right to try to give Hillary a big margin of victory. I'm very disappointed to see the Bernie Bros turn out in force in these letters with their finger wagging double digit polls. Trump is a very dirty fighter, and at the end of the contest, half of America would be thinking Bernie is senile. Not to mention the shocking levels of anti-Semitism that would have gone on. Still the Bernie Bros might be right, but I think all the candidates got too much negative press and not enough focus on positions. But we're to blame for that ourselves ... we want to read about character flaws and mistakes instead of positions.
6
Incredible. This hypocritical, tone-deaf letter is an insult to the intelligence of each one of your paid subscribers.
Today, you publish a ridiculous article by Sylvie Kauffman, in which she unabashedly insults our newly-elected President with this zinger:
"Ms. Le Pen is walking a fine line. She does not want to be Donald Trump. She is wary of his excesses. She wants to avoid accusations of racism and sexism...she wants to be respectable".
So I guess a card-carrying racist, xenophobe and anti-Semitic zealot like French extremist Marine Le Pen better be careful...or she might end up as 'bad' as President-elect Trump.
I've loved the NYTimes and have been a loyal reader for decades but am outraged that biased, liberal editors with semblance of impartiality or journalistic integrity are determined to march off a cliff and take the historic Grey Lady along with them.
#Sad!
Adieu.
Today, you publish a ridiculous article by Sylvie Kauffman, in which she unabashedly insults our newly-elected President with this zinger:
"Ms. Le Pen is walking a fine line. She does not want to be Donald Trump. She is wary of his excesses. She wants to avoid accusations of racism and sexism...she wants to be respectable".
So I guess a card-carrying racist, xenophobe and anti-Semitic zealot like French extremist Marine Le Pen better be careful...or she might end up as 'bad' as President-elect Trump.
I've loved the NYTimes and have been a loyal reader for decades but am outraged that biased, liberal editors with semblance of impartiality or journalistic integrity are determined to march off a cliff and take the historic Grey Lady along with them.
#Sad!
Adieu.
7
Why should anyone refrain from insulting Donald J. Trump?
1
Well, it's certainly been a love/hate relationship - thank God for the entertaining comments - it's like meeting old friends in the neighborhood bar. The screen names have taken on a life of their own. I guess go forward with a little humility - no one gets it right 100% of the time, however I will always imagine what it might have been like electing Bernie!
4
Unless you are poor and needy, Bernie won't be a fun drive to have with.
"we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism"
Isn't that really a convoluted way of saying "we were a PR shop for Hillary for the last year or so"?
Shameless, panic-driven drivel.
Isn't that really a convoluted way of saying "we were a PR shop for Hillary for the last year or so"?
Shameless, panic-driven drivel.
10
Nah, you guys didn't miss it, you're all paid for by the HRC campaign and have shown everyone you have no integrity anymore, if ever....
When you so fervently lie for one side, even those with 2-digit IQs can see the mendacity.
giggling at your loss of readership....bye bye yellow journalists
When you so fervently lie for one side, even those with 2-digit IQs can see the mendacity.
giggling at your loss of readership....bye bye yellow journalists
9
Your paper, along with other media outlets, by giving Trump so much media coverage, and taking him seriously, while at the same time slanting coverage of Mrs. Clinton, must share responsibility for creating the situation America faces today. Your statement, like your coverage, shows that you have not "turned on a dime" but are still following the same downhill path to nowhere. You are still blind to what has happened, why it happened, and what we can expect to happen. I'm done with your smug arrogance, from telling me what I should watch, wear, cook and read, to your biased reportage. You have let your readers down, and you show no signs of changing. The Guardian, here I come!
4
All hate all the time. Bias, bias, bias.
7
To the Subscribers, in the aftermath of this chaos we must all begin to vote with our feet and oppose the policies and institutions which have allowed this to happen. The voters did speak, and she is not the President elect.
Please join me in a mass cancellation. We will return when the NYTimes actually begins delivering 'the independent, original journalism for which they were known'.
To the NYT, Please take Teresa Fischer's and other's advice to heart about topics which require investigation. No excuses for any of us to hide, there is too much at stake.
Please join me in a mass cancellation. We will return when the NYTimes actually begins delivering 'the independent, original journalism for which they were known'.
To the NYT, Please take Teresa Fischer's and other's advice to heart about topics which require investigation. No excuses for any of us to hide, there is too much at stake.
5
I agree with one reader: too little and too late. It was already weekend when I noticed some of your columnists began to look into themselves, while Washington Post and other newspapers had already done that for days.
Oh BTW I'm keeping my New Yorker subscription even though it is even more arrogant than your newspaper. But at least it has some interesting non-politics stories.
Will never subscribe when Krugman's there.
Oh BTW I'm keeping my New Yorker subscription even though it is even more arrogant than your newspaper. But at least it has some interesting non-politics stories.
Will never subscribe when Krugman's there.
4
Your readership is declining and you have to decide whether you want to remain a left wing newspaper with an agenda, or a news organization that reports the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The choice is yours.
7
Sanders' treatment was a disgrace to independent objective journalism.
9
Barbra Streisand told Obama advisor David Axelrod, “I hate to say it, but people are stupid, "and that the president needs to talk to people in simpler terms.
It seemed he listened.
Hillary did as well.
Here's H.L. Mencken in 1926 with even better advice:
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
Here's what the NY Times Maureen Dowd’s said in her article "When Will Hillary Let Go?” (June 14, 2014):
"Hillary still obsesses about money, a narrative thread that has existed since she was thwarted in her desire to build a pool at the governor’s mansion in poor Arkansas and left the White House with a doggie bag full of sofas, rugs, lamps, TVs and china, some of which the Clintons later had to pay for or return."
Why was Hillary not arrested for theft—especially from the White House?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton and inviting him onto her plane for "partially personal" conversation?
What did they discuss in their non-personal part of their talk?
There is plenty to investigate about Hillary—and her "Foundation."
Let the NY Times begin.
1
I feel like i should roll up my dog and swat the NYT on the nose... bad paper, bad paper...
8
We have been subscribers to the NYTIMES for 18 years.
I would make a daily task to read as much as possible.
On the afternoon of Friday, October 28 of this year, as the Times home page giddy and smugly reported on FBI Director James Comey's misguided and possibly illegal action I stopped viewing the Times as my primary source of news. I had had enough. I found that I was looking at bylines of news reports because I no longer trusted some writers. The Public Editor had become more of a Public Relations Editor. And the policy of "false equivalency" of the Times Editors in reporting on the 2016 Election should not have surprised me in hindsight.
I remember the shameful, homophobic reporting (or lack thereof) of The New York Times in the years prior and at the start of the AIDS epidemic.
I remember the shameful, ruinous reporting of the NYTimes that enabled Dick Cheney and Bush Administration to conduct an illegitimate war.
Let's face it, the Washington Post broke the important stories of Election 2016 while you were trying to make "emails" happen because that was your initial "scoop".
I appreciate your expressed sentiments, it's yet to be seen where whatever is left of "The Press" has the guts to report in a post-truth world.
I would make a daily task to read as much as possible.
On the afternoon of Friday, October 28 of this year, as the Times home page giddy and smugly reported on FBI Director James Comey's misguided and possibly illegal action I stopped viewing the Times as my primary source of news. I had had enough. I found that I was looking at bylines of news reports because I no longer trusted some writers. The Public Editor had become more of a Public Relations Editor. And the policy of "false equivalency" of the Times Editors in reporting on the 2016 Election should not have surprised me in hindsight.
I remember the shameful, homophobic reporting (or lack thereof) of The New York Times in the years prior and at the start of the AIDS epidemic.
I remember the shameful, ruinous reporting of the NYTimes that enabled Dick Cheney and Bush Administration to conduct an illegitimate war.
Let's face it, the Washington Post broke the important stories of Election 2016 while you were trying to make "emails" happen because that was your initial "scoop".
I appreciate your expressed sentiments, it's yet to be seen where whatever is left of "The Press" has the guts to report in a post-truth world.
5
I was not impressed with the Times’ message to its readers. I expected an apology such as “Dear readers, we at the Times apologize to our readers for consistently under estimating Donald Trump’s chances of winning. The fact that other media organizations did this as well is NO EXUSE. We at the Times hold ourselves to the highest standards of journalism. Given the magnitude of this mistake and the potential serious consequences, we will investigate how we go it so wrong and how we will prevent this from happening again in the future. We will report back to our readers with our findings within six month.”.
8
Through-out the campaign, the NY Times focused on day to day statements of the candidates with way-too-much righteous indignation over Trump statements and way-too-little attention to half-baked Clinton statements.
This is the fault of the editors in choosing the main stories to feature. And the result of such failure should be resignations and replacements.
This is the fault of the editors in choosing the main stories to feature. And the result of such failure should be resignations and replacements.
2
I will still read NYT because no other paper covers a broad range of subjects that I truly enjoy reading everyday. NYT has inspired me with its moving coverage of "Portraits of Grief" after 9-11 and there are so many other positives that could be mentioned here.
That said, my conservative doctor, whom I truly respect and who voted for Trump, mentioned a few years back that I ought to read periodicals other than NYT since my point-of-view and perspective will be limited. At that time, I thought to myself, is there any other paper out there that will give me such perspective? The Economist?
It turns out that my doctor along with perhaps even Mr. Trump may have been right about NYT and media coverage. Perhaps it was too one-sided.
We all make mistakes and this is a very good learning opportunity to improve NYT, and in doing so win back the trust and at the same time bring in a broader demographics of readers.
I look forward to a balanced coverage not favoring any one group. I want to know the truth even if it is hard to swallow at times. I hope you have more journalists going out in the field and capturing what's really out there.
Best wishes!
That said, my conservative doctor, whom I truly respect and who voted for Trump, mentioned a few years back that I ought to read periodicals other than NYT since my point-of-view and perspective will be limited. At that time, I thought to myself, is there any other paper out there that will give me such perspective? The Economist?
It turns out that my doctor along with perhaps even Mr. Trump may have been right about NYT and media coverage. Perhaps it was too one-sided.
We all make mistakes and this is a very good learning opportunity to improve NYT, and in doing so win back the trust and at the same time bring in a broader demographics of readers.
I look forward to a balanced coverage not favoring any one group. I want to know the truth even if it is hard to swallow at times. I hope you have more journalists going out in the field and capturing what's really out there.
Best wishes!
4
You claim to have covered this election "without fear or favor", yet you still were complicit in the election to office of the most unqualified man to helm this country. His remarks from the Access Hollywood tape, and a series of damning documentations of serial philandering and bigotry should have doomed Trump's campaign, yet like greedy children entranced by the Pied Piper you danced to his tune, chasing one outrageous statement after the next, never focusing on what *mattered*, only on what was *current*.
Your newsroom might have dismissed Trump as a fool, but he bamboozled you through and through; the Republican strategy of holding Hillary in contempt for a single issue throughout the campaign made the characterization of dishonesty stick through sheer repetition. In contrast, again and again, Trump showed his contemptible nature, but due to your insatiable greed for new scandals you pursued every red herring he threw at you, completely garbling the message of his innate unfitness.
If you were truly committed to reform you'd reflect on the chronology of your coverage and look to what Trump did, and how you and other news organizations responded, after each of his major gaffes. You'd find that he quickly manufactured another superficial scandal for you to crow, encouraging your complicity in burying his deepest shortcomings.
Your newsroom might have dismissed Trump as a fool, but he bamboozled you through and through; the Republican strategy of holding Hillary in contempt for a single issue throughout the campaign made the characterization of dishonesty stick through sheer repetition. In contrast, again and again, Trump showed his contemptible nature, but due to your insatiable greed for new scandals you pursued every red herring he threw at you, completely garbling the message of his innate unfitness.
If you were truly committed to reform you'd reflect on the chronology of your coverage and look to what Trump did, and how you and other news organizations responded, after each of his major gaffes. You'd find that he quickly manufactured another superficial scandal for you to crow, encouraging your complicity in burying his deepest shortcomings.
6
I am a registered Democrat living in NYC and I have to disagree with your self reflection of the NY Times providing a balanced and 'impartial' view when it comes to reporting on our political landscape. Are you kidding?? I agree with the previous comment from Marie that I will read the NY Times with "caution and distrust". It is now in the tabloid category as far as I am concerned...
14
I am a white rural Minnesota woman. I voted for Clinton. All of my neighbors voted for Trump. My mom, dad, siblings all voted for Trump. And I am angry with the Times, as a subscriber.
Get out of your ivory towers and actually send a reporter to LIVE WITH those of us in rural America. If you would have sent a reporter thru all of the small towns in this state, you would have caught on VERY quickly that you were wrong. MN now has a democratic governor , and a Republican Legislature. IF that can happen in a reliably "democratic " state, you can bet it happened elsewhere.
90% of the county I live in voted for Trump. I owe a mortgage; the real estate market is depressed here, so I can't move. In many ways I have no way to connect with those who voted for Clinton. I'm not a user of social media, because I feel it's disconnecting us from each other.
The democrats that live here are CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS. We are being ignored, big time. We go to church, believe in God, are anti-abortion, and many of us belong to the NRA (not me, but I know plenty of moderates who do). And we are insulted when those beliefs are attacked. The Times needs to understand that.
Good luck with your journalism. Maybe if you realized that those of us with moderate views cannot be written off, it would be a better paper.
Get out of your ivory towers and actually send a reporter to LIVE WITH those of us in rural America. If you would have sent a reporter thru all of the small towns in this state, you would have caught on VERY quickly that you were wrong. MN now has a democratic governor , and a Republican Legislature. IF that can happen in a reliably "democratic " state, you can bet it happened elsewhere.
90% of the county I live in voted for Trump. I owe a mortgage; the real estate market is depressed here, so I can't move. In many ways I have no way to connect with those who voted for Clinton. I'm not a user of social media, because I feel it's disconnecting us from each other.
The democrats that live here are CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS. We are being ignored, big time. We go to church, believe in God, are anti-abortion, and many of us belong to the NRA (not me, but I know plenty of moderates who do). And we are insulted when those beliefs are attacked. The Times needs to understand that.
Good luck with your journalism. Maybe if you realized that those of us with moderate views cannot be written off, it would be a better paper.
12
Four years from now, Trump will win Minnesota. You read it here first.
The 2016 presidential race was the greatest piece of drama ever produced in American politics. Okay, top three. Are their any Hollywood screenwriters or novelists who could have invented such a compelling narrative? Liar, liar, pants on fire. This beats the final episodes of the Sopranos and Breaking Bad by a country mile.
5
The 2016 election is probably not the most exciting in US history, there's a little bit of recentisim there. I would say that 1896, 1840, and 1800 were at least equally spectacular. And there's something to be said for 1968.
The NYT will continue to be one of my main sources of information. I'm confident you will maintain your high standards of excellence and depth of reporting. The American public will need a paper that keeps Trumps toes to the fire if democracy has a chance to survive his insanity.
2
What would have happened if NYT reported the real trump, the racist rallies in detail.What if the press didn't focus their camera's solely on trump ignoring the racist banter going on in the crowd?What if they showed and wrote that truth?
Would you have voted differently?The reporting from all news outlets down played what was really going on.They spent too much time talking about Hillaries emails, Wikileaks, ignoring the real horror going on at Trump rallies.Maybe that is what caused Trump to win, cause maybe if you all had seen and heard the truth about trump, you would not have voted for him.But ultimately the fault doesn't lie with NYT or any other news outlet. It lies with those whom voted for Trump.
NY knows who Hillary is,NY knows who Trump is, New York coach Hillary, perhaps the nation should have followed NY on this elections.
Would you have voted differently?The reporting from all news outlets down played what was really going on.They spent too much time talking about Hillaries emails, Wikileaks, ignoring the real horror going on at Trump rallies.Maybe that is what caused Trump to win, cause maybe if you all had seen and heard the truth about trump, you would not have voted for him.But ultimately the fault doesn't lie with NYT or any other news outlet. It lies with those whom voted for Trump.
NY knows who Hillary is,NY knows who Trump is, New York coach Hillary, perhaps the nation should have followed NY on this elections.
1
You can start by calling undocumented immigrants here, illegal aliens, as they are.
And stop favoring them over fellow Americans. Honestly, report the downside(s) of mass, unfettered immigration, including Muslims along with all their ultra religious, misogynistic, non-assimilating baggage.
This NYT is simply the WHY of Trump's win.
Along with the hysteria about transgender bathroom usage. Enough already.
And stop favoring them over fellow Americans. Honestly, report the downside(s) of mass, unfettered immigration, including Muslims along with all their ultra religious, misogynistic, non-assimilating baggage.
This NYT is simply the WHY of Trump's win.
Along with the hysteria about transgender bathroom usage. Enough already.
7
As an everyday reader of the Times and other newspapers, I'm at a loss as to why so many believe this paper has failed to provide accurate, comprehensive and unbiased reporting through this election. Angry readers should consider that the electorate can only be informed if it chooses to be. Fact is, this man was not propelled to office by ill-taught Times readers; nor, indeed, by readers of anything. Rather than crucify the embattled vanguard of proper press, hold to account those people who believe that learning is the enemy of knowledge. Every person bears ultimate responsibility for what she chooses to know, and chooses to do.
It's a grave mistake to grade a paper on how well it influences political outcomes. It's also a mistake to take an 84% Upshot prediction as some kind of guarantee. Anybody who felt is was safe to stay home Tuesday needs to revisit high school statistics, or the Cubs' odds before game 7.
It's a grave mistake to grade a paper on how well it influences political outcomes. It's also a mistake to take an 84% Upshot prediction as some kind of guarantee. Anybody who felt is was safe to stay home Tuesday needs to revisit high school statistics, or the Cubs' odds before game 7.
5
Thank you NYT for your straightforward reporting and clothier of naked emperors.
I loathe to label this emperor enigmatic as it lends credence to a blabbering idiot. The plain truth is that he remains unclear on a lot of issues. The issues that he took a strong stance on were those popular to his electorate, and remain nothing more than carnival rants by a seasoned ringmaster.
I loathe to label this emperor enigmatic as it lends credence to a blabbering idiot. The plain truth is that he remains unclear on a lot of issues. The issues that he took a strong stance on were those popular to his electorate, and remain nothing more than carnival rants by a seasoned ringmaster.
2
I've read the NYT for years because of the high standards and excellent reporting, however this year, the election coverage turned the front page into the opinion section. I expected so much more than the propaganda I was witness to every day, and cannot continue to subscribe to what the NYT has become. Your mission according to you "...striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences..."
A reasonable and prudent person would have never come to that conclusion regarding your election coverage. If we ever needed fair and unbiased reporting, it's now. Too bad you're not an option.
A reasonable and prudent person would have never come to that conclusion regarding your election coverage. If we ever needed fair and unbiased reporting, it's now. Too bad you're not an option.
4
Make your Comments section truly representative of your readers' comments. As it is now, "preapproved" commenters sometimes make up the bulk of the comments, and many comment multiple times while other commenters are squeezed out. Also, when my comments agree with NYT positions, they're usually published, but when they don't, much less often. Your comments section is often an echo chamber, leading to a distorted view of your readers' opinions.
13
You blew it, and the new creep-in-chief is going after you all. Instead of calling stupid what it is, you made a front page story of it and now you're threatened by it. Why did you wait so long and go after the wrong story? Why didn't you condemn Wikileaks's actions and try to find out why they were doing what they were doing instead of reacting? Why didn't you question the Russian connection to all this vigorously? Why so stuck on her emails and not the crushing influence that this Christian-racist administration will have on this country, if not the world? You failed and we're all going to suffer.
7
Really? You may want to start by balancing out your Opinion writers. Start hiring someone west of the Hudson and demand they live in middle America.
7
Since the election you have called out the lies Trump has tweeted about the Times. Will you do the same on the false equivalencies that miss-inform so many Americans on climate change, gun control, civil rights, economic policy, etc?
2
Allow me to point out another disastrous misreading on your part.
Your web pages no longer work/or allow a reader to read the story without taking it away in mid sentence. I know advertising revenue is important to you, but it has ruined the ability to read a story. I and all my friends now simply just leave your site rather than fight the onslaught of wave after wave of other content you put in front of us, instead of the story we were reading. There must be another way, because this has killed you and you do not seem to notice.
Your web pages no longer work/or allow a reader to read the story without taking it away in mid sentence. I know advertising revenue is important to you, but it has ruined the ability to read a story. I and all my friends now simply just leave your site rather than fight the onslaught of wave after wave of other content you put in front of us, instead of the story we were reading. There must be another way, because this has killed you and you do not seem to notice.
1
Tone deaf reporting on Bernie Sanders, Standing Rock, and Flint has had me seeking alternatives. The country wanted change and you pushed for more of the same. You missed on a lot more than the election.
7
So for everyone complaining about the Times biased reporting, which direction is the bias? Trump said the Times was unfair to him.
1
Did the NYT buy the Onion over the weekend? This is a joke, right?
2
This election was a cry for change by the voters. Bernie Sanders represented change that would have helped every American man and woman. Donald Trump represented the destruction of Washington as we know it. Hillary Clinton represented more of the same----which voters were rejecting loudly. Because of the DNC's faithless behavior and the support of the New York Times, the most honest agent of change was completely sidelined. This is only the beginning; both major parties (and this journal) will either undergo serious reform or become increasingly irrelevant in American politics from this point forward.
4
Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Baquet:
On Sunday this letter appeared prominently in your publication. Within it you rededicate yourselves reporting the world "honestly, without fear or favor" and to bring the " fairness" and the "independence" to your coverage.
On Monday, just a day later your front page headline labels Stephen Bannon as an "Extremist". To paraphrase Reagan "There you go again". You are interjecting an inflammatory and negative label, which clearly reflects your Editorial bent, into the mix and for no apparent reason.
If you are committed to honesty, this would be a good place to start.
I
On Sunday this letter appeared prominently in your publication. Within it you rededicate yourselves reporting the world "honestly, without fear or favor" and to bring the " fairness" and the "independence" to your coverage.
On Monday, just a day later your front page headline labels Stephen Bannon as an "Extremist". To paraphrase Reagan "There you go again". You are interjecting an inflammatory and negative label, which clearly reflects your Editorial bent, into the mix and for no apparent reason.
If you are committed to honesty, this would be a good place to start.
I
4
Good Call. You nailed it. m
1
I was absolutely sick that after months of showing Hillary win by a margin of 84-86%, the moment the polls closed you put Donald Trump as the winner with a margin of 95%. As another person said here you became the arm of the Democratic Party rather than doing your job reporting the news fairly which is what we expect. Even further, it is sickening to read people like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dodd just prognosticating failure and doom for the US. Shame on you.
3
Arty, it seems to me that its as true in journalism as it is in life that when the going gets tough the tough get going...And yes, we here on the Left and Center Left are facing some pretty significant challenges, but sometimes these challenges are necessary to help us remember who we are and why we've made the decision to work within our Democracy from this prespective in the first place. Stay Strong!
2
NYT was extremely biased in favor of HRC. Between NYT, and other MSM it felt as if only idiots could support DJT. You were dead wrong in your views, as HRC was an extremely flawed candidate.
6
Of all the adjectives used, this is the first article I have read that uses "enigmatic" to describe our President-Elect, as if there was simply no way to predict this outcome--it was. The coverage regarding this candidate was often presented in convicted, impassioned, and judgmental tones. This is not to say that the characterization was not warranted or somehow untruthful. But the Times's bias, which was initially apparent by affirmatively endorsing a candidate, has been all but confirmed by the paper's active or negligent contribution towards the creation of a liberal echo chamber that "flew over" those issues and perspectives that clearly carry significant weight with a large segment of the country--issues that don't appeal to the usual Times readership.
As you recommit to reporting America and the world honestly while at the same time holding power to account, please realize that there is a balance to be struck in this endeavor. Any America that is considered in an echo chamber--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--is but a shadow of what the country and its people are and can be.
As you recommit to reporting America and the world honestly while at the same time holding power to account, please realize that there is a balance to be struck in this endeavor. Any America that is considered in an echo chamber--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--is but a shadow of what the country and its people are and can be.
2
Too often the media for economic reasons will perpetuate and hype up stories that have no tangible significance-- like the email server "drama". Hillary set up a private server, which was maybe worth a wrist slapping at best; it was given way too much attention. Of course the emails had highly confidential, and top secret information-- duh-- Hillary was the SOS for heaven's sake. And, the email was only privy to people who had top security clearance in the first place. There was no evidence that it had been hacked and we all know any server can get hacked. So, the beginning and end of that story should have been that emails remained confidential and the server was never hacked. Meanwhile, the real issues like climate change, free trade, student loans, healthcare etc etc. were ignored. The NYTimes is guilty in their lack of dedication to the important issues of the day and that deserves more than a wrist slapping.
1
The Times is still a great newspaper though it oftentimes adheres to the dangerous practice of false equivalency. Simply put: A fact can be a fact and does not require a falsehood to balance things out on the other end of some journalistic teeter-totter. Can we trust Times reporters to discern truth from fiction? I hope so. It is your job, mister publisher and executive editor, to make hires to ensure that this is so. An informed public needs you now, more than ever.
2
That's nice. Do you feel better now?
3
I sincerely hope you will doggedly report the miscarriage of justice that is about to happen.
3
Yesterday I subscribed to The New York Times and The Washington Post because of concerns the Trump Administration will try to stifle the media and even try to put papers out of business. I am guessing there will be lots of new subscriptions for the same reason. There are excellent investigative journalists who actually fact check. I think polls were wrong because most of the population resides in urban areas. That is why Clinton won the popular vote.
2
Can't give the traditional one-fingered salute to your "explanation" for the campaign coverage in a posted commentary, so just imagine it. And oh, by the way, I had the nerve to write in Sanders-Gabbard on my ballot. Let the insane and wholly undemocratic whining about "throwing away your vote" begin.
4
I consider myself an action-centered, mission-driven, justice-oriented Catholic. I love reading your articles referencing justice issues such as : protecting the environment, advocating for workers rights, and advocating global solidarity in times of political, environmental, social and economic crisis.
Where I believe the NYT went off course was its lack of critically engagement on the issue of human dignity from an organized religious perspective. Your articles are predisposed and biased towards a pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage crowd. Furthermore, your perspectives and editorial opinions are often hostile towards anyone who does not subscribe to gay marriage and furthering abortion rights. Anyone who criticizes or who tries to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for instance, is, in your newspaper's opinion, an anathema, anachronism, and an embarrassment.
To remedy this problem I suggest the NYT hire a few writers who have a mature (as opposed to infantile or adolescent) relationship with with organized religion.
Our culture mistakenly promotes an individualistic spirituality. In the face of this counter-productive spiritual perspective, millions of Americans continue to gravitate to a more corporate spiritual identity. You need to hire writers who not only respect such traditional perspectives, but actually practice them.
Thanks for waking up, being more careful with your truth claims, and commitment to embracing a wider audience.
Where I believe the NYT went off course was its lack of critically engagement on the issue of human dignity from an organized religious perspective. Your articles are predisposed and biased towards a pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage crowd. Furthermore, your perspectives and editorial opinions are often hostile towards anyone who does not subscribe to gay marriage and furthering abortion rights. Anyone who criticizes or who tries to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for instance, is, in your newspaper's opinion, an anathema, anachronism, and an embarrassment.
To remedy this problem I suggest the NYT hire a few writers who have a mature (as opposed to infantile or adolescent) relationship with with organized religion.
Our culture mistakenly promotes an individualistic spirituality. In the face of this counter-productive spiritual perspective, millions of Americans continue to gravitate to a more corporate spiritual identity. You need to hire writers who not only respect such traditional perspectives, but actually practice them.
Thanks for waking up, being more careful with your truth claims, and commitment to embracing a wider audience.
1
Wow, are there people on this board who believe that Bernie would have beat Trump? Sure, they share the trade protectionism that drove Trump support, but Bernie was way too liberal on every other front to get those votes. The best case scenario in the case of a Sanders win would have been Bloomberg as a third party candidate, he would have won easily.
But I agree, the NYT dedicated its news coverage to bringing down Trump, and that included pushing Hilary. It's coverage was biased throughout.
And you know, this editorial does sound a bit like an apology.
But I agree, the NYT dedicated its news coverage to bringing down Trump, and that included pushing Hilary. It's coverage was biased throughout.
And you know, this editorial does sound a bit like an apology.
2
There is a better chance to see Putin singing the American Anthem and pledging allegiance to the flag, than to see you report "honestly, without fear or favor". Not only have you been part of Hillary's political machine, but has labeled racist, mysogynist, ignorant, etc. to all of us who did not agree with you.
Why are you so shocked of the results? Because you still do not understand that We the People are tired of being treated as second class citizens, and that
God, family, and country is our maxim.
Sadly, you and the rest of the MSM, by your lies, deceptions, and omissions have become arquitects of destruction.
Why are you so shocked of the results? Because you still do not understand that We the People are tired of being treated as second class citizens, and that
God, family, and country is our maxim.
Sadly, you and the rest of the MSM, by your lies, deceptions, and omissions have become arquitects of destruction.
2
What a self serving crock! The NYT was a clone of the National Enquirer during the election. For every story that showed Clinton in a positive light there were several bigger stories showing her unfavorably. For every story about Clinton you had a dozen about Trump. You published no substantive investigative stories about Trump. With friend like you, who needs enemies. Overt the last few years the professionalism of the NYT and the quality of your reporting has plummeted.
6
The NYT is a national treasure, the only surviving newspaper of record. Thank YOU.
3
So, essentially, having abandoned the "fundamental mission of Times journalism" throughout the single most important process that exists in this country, and having been shocked that its abandonment did not produce the desired electoral result, the NYT is now going to resume its responsibility to "hold power to account impartially and unflinchingly" now that the favored candidate has no power and the reviled candidate does?
6
Several friends of mine cancelled their subscriptions.
3
You should be making an abject apology for a year of misleading 'reporting', not a whining excuse. Keep your editorials to the editorial pages.
I will be cancelling my subscription and find another source for getting to the unbiased truth.
Regrettably,
Pat
I will be cancelling my subscription and find another source for getting to the unbiased truth.
Regrettably,
Pat
6
The "predictor" number favoring HRC over Trump turned out to be a sham. I was horrified watching it flip in the early morning hours of Wednesday Nov. 9th. What a joke!
2
But that number was based on state polls which were off. That is the question to ask and they were not rigged. Statistical approaches that worked in 2008-12 did not work here with Trump overperforming 5 or 6 points. I don't blame the Times for this.
1
Dear NYT:
You shouldn't feel bad or blame yourself for what happened. You weren't the only press that made the mistakes.
This is a perfect story of blind men and an elephant. The twist is all the men touched the same part of the elephant.
Fact is, for the last ten years or more, news media and press have become more investigative rather than reporting. Reporters are out to prove something rather than report something. Problem with proving as opposed to reporting is you allow your principles and beliefs get in the way.
Left leaning newspapers wanted Obama and Clinton to succeed so bad, and wanted Trump to fail so passionately that you allowed your emotions and beliefs and principles guide you to where to look for "facts" and accept your "facts" as reality.
Don't believe me, just go back and look at the way you covered Obamacare.
Don't believe me, just go back and look at the way you covered Trump.
Don't believe me, just look at your reader comments section. Your audience suddenly come from the same corner of opinions, who touch the same part of the elephants as that's where you lead them to because you believe that's where they want to be.
Lawyers and investigators prove. Journalists report.
Do what you are trained and expected to do.
You shouldn't feel bad or blame yourself for what happened. You weren't the only press that made the mistakes.
This is a perfect story of blind men and an elephant. The twist is all the men touched the same part of the elephant.
Fact is, for the last ten years or more, news media and press have become more investigative rather than reporting. Reporters are out to prove something rather than report something. Problem with proving as opposed to reporting is you allow your principles and beliefs get in the way.
Left leaning newspapers wanted Obama and Clinton to succeed so bad, and wanted Trump to fail so passionately that you allowed your emotions and beliefs and principles guide you to where to look for "facts" and accept your "facts" as reality.
Don't believe me, just go back and look at the way you covered Obamacare.
Don't believe me, just go back and look at the way you covered Trump.
Don't believe me, just look at your reader comments section. Your audience suddenly come from the same corner of opinions, who touch the same part of the elephants as that's where you lead them to because you believe that's where they want to be.
Lawyers and investigators prove. Journalists report.
Do what you are trained and expected to do.
5
"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."
When this letter arrived in my email a few days ago, I read it with the hope that there'd be a mea culpa for the journalistic misbehavior we'd seen over the past year. But when I got to the line I pasted above, I realized it was going to be more of the same. I have kept my subscription for auld lang syne and because my local paper is so reliably awful, but I am tempted, almost daily, to terminate.
I, and many like me, will go to our graves without forgiving you for what you did to Bernie Sanders and his campaign and supporters. You treated him and us with contempt, while glossing over the manifest flaws of your chosen handmaiden. Your agenda, electing Hillary Clinton, contaminated the rest of the paper, so that at this point, I cannot trust that I'm getting honest reporting on anything.
Maybe that's good; I now use far more news resources for the facts, something I'd recommend everyone do, regardless of their primary news source. But the behavior of your columnists and most especially your editors during this election has forever tainted the Great Grey Lady in my eyes, and the eyes of many.
Trust--it's a big bugbear this year. Take a look at your candidate to see the consequences of failing to attend to its preservation.
When this letter arrived in my email a few days ago, I read it with the hope that there'd be a mea culpa for the journalistic misbehavior we'd seen over the past year. But when I got to the line I pasted above, I realized it was going to be more of the same. I have kept my subscription for auld lang syne and because my local paper is so reliably awful, but I am tempted, almost daily, to terminate.
I, and many like me, will go to our graves without forgiving you for what you did to Bernie Sanders and his campaign and supporters. You treated him and us with contempt, while glossing over the manifest flaws of your chosen handmaiden. Your agenda, electing Hillary Clinton, contaminated the rest of the paper, so that at this point, I cannot trust that I'm getting honest reporting on anything.
Maybe that's good; I now use far more news resources for the facts, something I'd recommend everyone do, regardless of their primary news source. But the behavior of your columnists and most especially your editors during this election has forever tainted the Great Grey Lady in my eyes, and the eyes of many.
Trust--it's a big bugbear this year. Take a look at your candidate to see the consequences of failing to attend to its preservation.
6
The leadership of the NYTimes has slowly but steadily turned this operation into a reflection of the worst elements of modern culture - sound bites with no depth, context, or substance, from political stories to the puff pieces on Kanye West. The amount of opinion weaved with fact in some of your stories, especially during the Democratic Primary, had become disheartening, because it just did not seem balanced. Your opinion columns take up more and more space on your front page [on the site, at least] which says to me that you feel this is more of a draw than actual reporting . We, your readers, can handle the truth. Please just provide them to us in a way that makes sense. It's condescending when you do otherwise. I expect this from CNN, but not from the NYTimes.
It amazes me how right up until the results came in, the Times had still projected Mrs. Clinton to win by at least 80%. As an entity I had hoped to rely on for objective information, it is mind-boggling how you were so wrong. Your readers are not stupid and are adults. We can handle the facts and we can make our our decisions based on them. We rely on you to provide them, though.
Here's one idea - start doing what you used to do. Publish the results of every vote in Congress. Assume we readers can read a table and how our representatives voted. Give us the tools to discover on our own the voting [or in Rubio's case, lack of voting] of our elected officials.
John
It amazes me how right up until the results came in, the Times had still projected Mrs. Clinton to win by at least 80%. As an entity I had hoped to rely on for objective information, it is mind-boggling how you were so wrong. Your readers are not stupid and are adults. We can handle the facts and we can make our our decisions based on them. We rely on you to provide them, though.
Here's one idea - start doing what you used to do. Publish the results of every vote in Congress. Assume we readers can read a table and how our representatives voted. Give us the tools to discover on our own the voting [or in Rubio's case, lack of voting] of our elected officials.
John
7
Coverage of the election clearly constituted a fiasco for The Times and other major media outlets.
This started early. When Trump showed surprising strength in the initial GOP primaries, instead of sending out reporters to talk with voters and find out just why that was the case, The Times and others spent all their time writing stories about how outrageous and unsuitable he was.
I kept telling my wife as the political season progressed, "when are they going to report on who likes him so much and why?"
It simply never occurred to The Times and others to get beyond the usual sources. In this, there was an undeniable arrogance representative of all of the things voters outside of the Blue Bubble were rebelling against.
I say all of the above as a retired public policy journalist living inside The Bubble and as someone who was and is NOT a Trump supporter.
This started early. When Trump showed surprising strength in the initial GOP primaries, instead of sending out reporters to talk with voters and find out just why that was the case, The Times and others spent all their time writing stories about how outrageous and unsuitable he was.
I kept telling my wife as the political season progressed, "when are they going to report on who likes him so much and why?"
It simply never occurred to The Times and others to get beyond the usual sources. In this, there was an undeniable arrogance representative of all of the things voters outside of the Blue Bubble were rebelling against.
I say all of the above as a retired public policy journalist living inside The Bubble and as someone who was and is NOT a Trump supporter.
7
After you published this statement, your paper continues to unfairly attack President Elect Donald J.Trump, if not always outright then by innuendo, by selective wording in what should be a news report but is tainted with the reporters opinion. Not only has your reporting been politically biased but over the past few years I have seen a major decline in the accuracy of your reporting and at least in one case after an error was reported regarding a published article, the wording was changed without informing readers of the correction. It seems your present cadre of reporters are less informed than in past years and more prone to inserting their opinions in news stories. I don't have much hope that your publication will change its unfair, biased, politically motivated reporting.
3
What matters what NY Times says? Opinion and "facts" are useless.
1
I just cancelled my subscription. If you get rid of Dean then perhaps I might come back. Remember "Äll The News That's Fit to Print." Stop speaking down to educated people. We do not like it.
5
I understand the anger of Bernie supporters that's driving the comments here, but I want to focus on journalism instead.
I'd like to see a beat dedicated to political media here at the Times. Similar to what Media Matters does, but less with the goal of "gotcha" moments and more with the goal of understanding and explaining what is happening inside the silos of right- (and left-) wing thinking.
It doesn't work to pretend that getting comments from politicians will tell a complete story about what's happening in politics anymore. Cover the propaganda we're can't avoid in social media, TV, radio and the Internet. Drag us out of our silos and force us to reckon with these influencers.
I'd like to see a beat dedicated to political media here at the Times. Similar to what Media Matters does, but less with the goal of "gotcha" moments and more with the goal of understanding and explaining what is happening inside the silos of right- (and left-) wing thinking.
It doesn't work to pretend that getting comments from politicians will tell a complete story about what's happening in politics anymore. Cover the propaganda we're can't avoid in social media, TV, radio and the Internet. Drag us out of our silos and force us to reckon with these influencers.
2
NYT is till my favorite source of news. I'm am begging our news media to HELP "we the people". Help save what's left of democracy. I don't know what it's going take, let alone how to go about it, but I feel seriously threatened, and I'm not even in the vulnerable group. Something has got to be done. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I've lost faith in the media, our political system, and my fellow Americans. How a significant percentage of the country could have voted for DT is beyond belief. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. Something is very very wrong.
3
Several of the Readers' Picks are about Bernie Sanders being slighted by the NYT. This is not about Bernie Sanders, so give it a rest already!
This is much bigger than that.
This is about how the news media and journalists have been cowed into purveyors of false-equivalency by the cumulative effect of decades of right-wing browbeating, lie-soaked propaganda, fascistic threats of takeovers (re: CBS News by Republican Senator Jesse Helms in the 1980s), and corporate consolidation, the latter of which turned many news rooms into infotainment production houses. And what has been the result?
A dumbed-down low-information electorate who thinks: 1) emails are worse than the rise of a modern-day Mussolini; and 2) a fascist Republican Party that has a long and documented history of doing absolutely nothing and caring even less for improving the lives of working men and women, yet is somehow worthy of their votes year after year after year.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest story not reported for the past 8 years has been the absolutely abysmal record of the GOP in Congress. If people in the Rust Belt want to know why their economic prospects have been stunted, ask your deliberately obstructionist GOP congressman or senator to explain. They had the means to do the right thing, but they chose party over country. It's the Republican way.
The New York Times should not play political favorites. It needs to put a stop to the cancer of false equivalency...now.
This is much bigger than that.
This is about how the news media and journalists have been cowed into purveyors of false-equivalency by the cumulative effect of decades of right-wing browbeating, lie-soaked propaganda, fascistic threats of takeovers (re: CBS News by Republican Senator Jesse Helms in the 1980s), and corporate consolidation, the latter of which turned many news rooms into infotainment production houses. And what has been the result?
A dumbed-down low-information electorate who thinks: 1) emails are worse than the rise of a modern-day Mussolini; and 2) a fascist Republican Party that has a long and documented history of doing absolutely nothing and caring even less for improving the lives of working men and women, yet is somehow worthy of their votes year after year after year.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest story not reported for the past 8 years has been the absolutely abysmal record of the GOP in Congress. If people in the Rust Belt want to know why their economic prospects have been stunted, ask your deliberately obstructionist GOP congressman or senator to explain. They had the means to do the right thing, but they chose party over country. It's the Republican way.
The New York Times should not play political favorites. It needs to put a stop to the cancer of false equivalency...now.
12
I hope you will continue to aggressively demonstrate that the first amendment is alive and well in a nation which has unfortunately just elected as its next president a man whose willful disregard for the truth is apparent. Allowing him to "create" an alternate reality--to lie and manipulate the truth--without any pushback will have profound effect on our democracy. The Times is in a unique position: it must be fair in its reporting but it must be forceful in calling out anyone in the new administration who plays fast and loose with the truth.
23
Your newspaper is hanging by a thread, as are others.
To suggest, as you did, that NYT strives to "....report America and the world honestly...." is ridiculous on its face; your bias is palpable.
Try reporting events rather than creating them!
To suggest, as you did, that NYT strives to "....report America and the world honestly...." is ridiculous on its face; your bias is palpable.
Try reporting events rather than creating them!
27
Be careful not to dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the back for the agility and creativity of your reporting. You upheld your reputation during the election and I considered your reporting to be honest. Although, perhaps more thorough digging might have disclosed how widespread and deeply ingrained the discontent was in states such as PA, WI, MI and OH. However, given the ever widening divide in America, I suspect that, as time goes by, individual assessments of whether any reporting is honest or accurate will become even more subjective.
6
If you really want to do a service for the nation to make up for your sins, how about a candid assessment of the qualifications of Trump's cabinet choices, starting with Newt Gingrich as our Secretary of State.
8
The famed advertising legend and creative, Bill Bernbach, used to have a business-sized card in his shirt pocket and would refer to it at every meeting or discussion with employees or clients.
Printed on it were the words:
"Maybe the other person is right."
That may be one way to bring the NY Times executives, editors, writers, etc. back down to earth.
Maybe your article could present viewpoints, images, articles, etc., that the liberal media in general shy away from.
Not just Op-Eds.
How about an entire daily NY Times section titled: "The Other Point of View."
It could include articles which don't agree with the Times like; self-help solutions or sources for minorities, religious point of view against abortions, gays, the positive side of Americans, the healthy elderly who have normal lives, etc.
Then you could be reporting rather than advocating only those matters the Times has on its own agenda.
To achieve better separation between news and opinion, have a Co-Publisher -- News and a Co-Publisher -- Opinion. One of these positions should be filled by a person outside the extended family that owns the company.
To better report on the forces and strains in America society, first, make a dedicated reporting staff commitment that parallels what the paper did in assigning reporters to the individual major presidential candidates. Domicile at least a few reporters for year-long stints outside metro New York and DC. Second, this "State of America" coverage should be rich in graphics which display and explain metrics over the past 70+ years -- i.e. cover the adult life of virtually all living Americans. One of the great sources of discontent in the country is the frame of reference due to the artificially high standard of living Americans enjoyed in the aftermath of World War II, as the rest of the developed world rebuilt from ruin.
Consider and encourage the unrecognized potential that President Trump will have to restore fact-based decision making among the electorate. It was said that only Richard Nixon’s strident anti-communist posture allowed him to make the opening to China. Trump's display of being uninformed and misinformed, whether it's real or posturing, puts him in the same position relative to facts and reason. We can hope that he is that wily!
To better report on the forces and strains in America society, first, make a dedicated reporting staff commitment that parallels what the paper did in assigning reporters to the individual major presidential candidates. Domicile at least a few reporters for year-long stints outside metro New York and DC. Second, this "State of America" coverage should be rich in graphics which display and explain metrics over the past 70+ years -- i.e. cover the adult life of virtually all living Americans. One of the great sources of discontent in the country is the frame of reference due to the artificially high standard of living Americans enjoyed in the aftermath of World War II, as the rest of the developed world rebuilt from ruin.
Consider and encourage the unrecognized potential that President Trump will have to restore fact-based decision making among the electorate. It was said that only Richard Nixon’s strident anti-communist posture allowed him to make the opening to China. Trump's display of being uninformed and misinformed, whether it's real or posturing, puts him in the same position relative to facts and reason. We can hope that he is that wily!
I've tried to contact The NY Times by email and phone and still have no response. I worked as a volunteer poll worker in LA and saw so many issues with voting and I can't imagine this didn't happen in other areas. 44% of votes were provisional because voters were listed as vote by mail, when in fact they never requested a mail-in ballot and did not receive one, so they were forced to vote provisionally. There were numerous other issues that I stated in my original email. There have been problems in other states too and no one is investigating this. I really think poll workers from all over the country, especially in swing states need to be questioned. It was so obvious that there was a big problem at our precinct and I've been told it happened in other districts too. Please investigate. Someone has to.
9
I'm sure your letter is well-meaning. But words must be followed by action. If you want to get back respect and readership, you have to get an editor that stops the group-think and will accept nothing but balance and truth from the staff. You have to stop trying to influence public policy except on the editorial page.
9
Your so-called straight news reporting was shockingly biased. To pick just one example, an article about some fringe cult of southern militia members straight out of the movie Deliverance, written to depict "typical" Trump supporters. The lowest and laziest form of journalism is to find some reprehensible person who supports a candidate and act as though it's the candidate's fault. Yet the Times did this over and over again. Is it any surprise no one but the most blind adherents of Hillary eventually tuned you out?
14
Hhmm now maybe i can after 6 months comfortably renew my subscription. I really couldn't understand why i had to wait for the most recent Wikileaks outbreak to get my news regarding YOUR candidate HRC. The story alone of how the DNC and HRC colluded with each other to hold back Bernie should have been a national tragedy and a newsworthy event but nothing,no hue and cry from the NYT, it's one thing to write favorably for a candidate its another though when your actually in her pocket cheerleading as all the other mass media had done. Keep it neutral please and just report the facts
22
I don't even know what you are saying in this letter. What precisely did you do (or not do) in your election coverage that made you feel you need to publicly state your re-commitment to your paper's values. If you felt strongly enough to write a letter to your readers, could you be more explicit? C'mon man.
30
great comment
1
I echo Melissa's call here.
1
The NYT reports thousands of US citizens protesting, featuring videos and pictures. It also reports hundreds of thousands of protesters in Seoul. Why are a few thousand protesters - a minuscule fraction of the US population - reported so prominently? I am anti-Trump, yet I think the US protesters do not deserve so much space. When their number reaches the Korean quota, it will be front page news.
9
The New Youk Times is a failed newspaper.
14
gee- i didn't even see trump's mouth move.
1
I was always taught that when you really blow something, you own up to it and pledge to do better. By own up, I mean apologize--clearly and sincerely. This self-aggrandizing statement doesn't cut it. In the two days following the election, I had thought about canceling my NYT subscription but then I decided I was over-reacting. Having just read this statement, however, my mind is made up--I will be canceling my subscription later today. The arrogance pervading your echo chamber of a news room is simply beyond the pale. I want nothing further to do with you.
34
Well said, it's all too much to stomach; the hubris of the NYT is not something I care to subscribe to either.
1
You still haven't covered the real story in this election, which is why Democratic voters stayed home in the key states that Trump won. There was nada on news from the grassroots that the Dem GOTV was bumpy or rotten - which I read about weeks before the election in Twitter. Then, you fell for the story, which you are still falling for, that the big story is how all these economically anxious people came out for Trump, when, in fact, his voters were a subset of Romney voters - same old same old Republicans. Has there been, will there be, any story whatsoever about the people who didn't vote? Furthermore, your op ed page is a disgrace, running narratives wildly at variance with facts and making grand generalizations on zero data. The whole format of the op ed columnist needs to be rethought. Why are they there? If they are there to shape the news, well, time to get rid of them and the whole format. Jon Stewart, in the horrible Bush era, told the guys on Crossfire, stop. You are bad for America. Time for someone to say the same about the op ed page, about the horseracing meme - I mean, to present the disaster of the 88 percent edge given to Clinton turning into a 90 percent chance for Trump in two hours as "turning on a dime" is funny - most people would call it "exposing the con". And the normalizing coverage of Trump is disgraceful.
20
Despite your bias and errors, I still read NYT daily
but now with caution and distrust.
but now with caution and distrust.
22
My students finally understood what I was teaching them about Noam Chomsky and manufacture of consent. They have been appalled--but now they know.
3
Has everyone lost their minds? Apologizing for reporting? Sad day for journalism
8
You read voters wrong because you ignored people right under your nose who supported Trump. The people who were too shamed by the media, after being called bigots and racists to even tell a pollster that they were thinking of voting for him. They are not all rednecks living in the rust belt. Maybe some are well educated affluent women who were tired of having their vote taken for granted by the DNC. Maybe some were just voting against Hilary because you shoved it down people's throats that she would win and they didn't want her to win by a landslide. Take your PC blinders off, and get your reporters to do some real investigative work. Go back to the reporting standards of 40 years ago. Ask "Why?", check facts, dig deeper in all your reporting, and have your editors ask "So What?" after reading each proof. I know I do.
9
Still too angry to form rational sentences...
8
One thing is certain, the NY Times (as with other media outlets) had no idea what was going on with this election. The only thing that exceeded the inaccuracy was the certainty with which it was conveyed. This is disappointing as perhaps if voters better understood the state of the race then maybe this tragedy could have been prevented.
6
I was expecting an apology, actually. For getting the election so very wrong in the run up, and for the stories that you and the rest of mainstream media all but ignored; if the demonstrations and the hundreds of arrests during Democracy Spring last April had been made in Moscow, it would have been front page news, but when it happened in our Nation's Capitol it went ignored.
You owe readers more than a better job. You owe us an apology.
I'll continue to subscribe, but not for the news anymore.
You owe readers more than a better job. You owe us an apology.
I'll continue to subscribe, but not for the news anymore.
8
The NYT became the mouth piece of the Clinton's, the pro globalization neo lib elites, and the Russo-phobic neo cons. To me, it really became to them what the dailies Revolucion and Gramma have been to the Castro's.
Ordinary Americans that resisted those policies were routinely denigrated in a very arrogant manner, same as the Castro's press attacked us, the opposition, during the 60's.
However, the Castro press did not have to be profitable. I would say that it is very difficult for a business to regain a reputation once it is lost.
Ordinary Americans that resisted those policies were routinely denigrated in a very arrogant manner, same as the Castro's press attacked us, the opposition, during the 60's.
However, the Castro press did not have to be profitable. I would say that it is very difficult for a business to regain a reputation once it is lost.
5
It's easier now to understand the catastrophic intelligence failure regarding WMDs that led to the fiasco in Iraq. The NYT couldn't have done better than if it picked the CIA to assess the chances of a Clinton victory.
6
What makes you to declare the results as 'dramatic and unexpected climax' in your first sentence? Is it anti-climax just because it went against the liking of NYT?
Media, in democracies like US & India tend to deliver more 'views' than 'news', perhaps due to the enormous freedom they enjoy. Many times media is unable to resist the temptation of taking sides and therefore ends up promoting a particular party or ideology and even tries to influence public opinion. Many media outlets, by the manner of their reporting, expose their political inclinations.
Media, in democracies like US & India tend to deliver more 'views' than 'news', perhaps due to the enormous freedom they enjoy. Many times media is unable to resist the temptation of taking sides and therefore ends up promoting a particular party or ideology and even tries to influence public opinion. Many media outlets, by the manner of their reporting, expose their political inclinations.
2
The real message to your dear loyal readers : please don't put us out of business because of our uninformed, imaginary, disastrous election coverage. You owe us a year of our lives for your faux "journalism."
After decades of reading the Times, I truly have no idea how I can believe one printed word anymore.
If it wasn't for the Arts section, (although at this point I'm wondering whether Hamilton really is a success, and Leonard Cohen is alive and well.) I'd be leaving forever.
After decades of reading the Times, I truly have no idea how I can believe one printed word anymore.
If it wasn't for the Arts section, (although at this point I'm wondering whether Hamilton really is a success, and Leonard Cohen is alive and well.) I'd be leaving forever.
17
I have been a loyal reader ever since my father introduced me to the Times in the 1950s. As an adult I have been a print and digital subscriber. I consider myself to be a democratic socialist. You did an awful job during the election cycle. You misinformed us about the mood of the country and you took sides in the Democratic race way too early. I have to reconsider my loyalty to the paper. I desperately need a balanced and insightful source of news. At this point, you ain't it.
17
Perhaps it's also a great time to focus more on serious, hard news as well, and for the New York Times to finally assume the mantle of the nation's newspaper of record. Time to do away with frivolous sections such as cooking, style, fashion, etc., and instead dedicate those resources to hard news, investigative journalism, and probing reporting, areas in which the Times has always excelled.
8
I understand your comments but please don't rid the cooking section. Sam Sifton is the most objective, most helpful writer at the Times. He presents a multitude of cultures on a weekly basis in as positive a light as possible. He makes us want to learn about and even try out creative ways to experience our own as well as other heritages in the most personal and intimate way; preparing and sharing meals with our own families and friends. Seriously, there is no more meaningful metaphor for what is needed in our nation and our world today. Aside from the cultural issues, cooking at home is far less expensive and far more nutritious than other alternatives. Sams (and others) recipes often take into account time needed for preparation and cooking as well. My wife and I both work very long hours outside the home but have made it a commitment to each other and our children to eat together and at home and we thank to Sam and his staff for helping us. The shopping and cooking experience is also one we share to bring us closer together and respect the work needed to improve our quality of life.
Far too many voices insist on magnifying our differences for their own selfish gains. Kudos to Sam and the NYT for finding a way to counter that. Too bad that example doesn't go further.
Far too many voices insist on magnifying our differences for their own selfish gains. Kudos to Sam and the NYT for finding a way to counter that. Too bad that example doesn't go further.
For all those considering cancelling, just do it, if feels great. At worst, they'll give you a great deal to continue subscribing. I got one. And you can always cancel again later if their work doesn't improve. There are more news outlets in the world that need support.
12
In the end, the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc. helped elect Trump president. Not by some backlash to their collective reporting, but by publishing multiple, repeated, inaccurate polls indicating that Clinton was comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. Trump won the presidency with significantly less votes than Romney received in 2012. Therefore, it is indisputable that what lost this election for the Democrats was voter turnout, given that millions who voted for Obama simply did not go to the polls. While some Obama voters may have voted for Trump, they could not have supported Trump in vast numbers because Trump received far less total votes than Romney. The drumbeat of confident predictions that Ms. Clinton was going to win by the major press turned out to be wishful thinking. However, it accomplished something quite ironic - telling millions of democratic voters that their votes were unneeded and therefore helping to elect Trump. Put all the political recriminations aside - what the major press needs to diagnose is how it did not critically examine polls and inputs telling them what they wanted to hear. This is a common failing that dooms many businesses, and the major press in 2016 has the ignominous pleasure of joining their ranks.
17
I think it's great that you will "rededicate [yourselves] to the fundamental mission of Times journalism...to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly"; however, are we to accept the failure on the Times' part? It was a failure. An incredibly irresponsible failure being compounded by not being brutal in the honesty that is needed at this very moment. Get other points of view. From people of color, from the streets, get your journalists to do their job instead of sitting and waiting for news to fall on their laps. Everyone gave this man entirely too much air time to send his venomous message out and now we have this. Yes, rededicate yourselves but if you won't make yourselves a target to him then that means you aren't doing the job well enough.
9
Your rededication to honesty would be refreshing. Just a rreminder: As a news organization, your job is to report it, not be the PR arm of the Democrat party. In fact, actual journalism is crucial to freedom in the USA. You're supposed to be holding politicians' feet to the fire and do your part to keep them honest (relatively speaking).
Hillary Clinton sits atop a mountain of corruption but you chose to focus on more important issues like the Rubiio family's driving record and how many violations they had in the past 20+ years. Because that's much more crucial to national security than all that Hillary did.
So you'll forgive me if I don't think too much of your rededication to honesty. Had you been true to your profession, such an action would not be necessary. And you'll understand that I will be looking to citizen journalists, who have the US's best interests at heart, for the real news. You and your ilk created the vacuum which they filled.
Hillary Clinton sits atop a mountain of corruption but you chose to focus on more important issues like the Rubiio family's driving record and how many violations they had in the past 20+ years. Because that's much more crucial to national security than all that Hillary did.
So you'll forgive me if I don't think too much of your rededication to honesty. Had you been true to your profession, such an action would not be necessary. And you'll understand that I will be looking to citizen journalists, who have the US's best interests at heart, for the real news. You and your ilk created the vacuum which they filled.
13
Yes, I will continue to look to the NYT for information. Thank-you...
7
will never buy the NYT again. Awful prejudicial coverage.
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!" - Robert Burns
The Times' post-election narrative suffers from the same dissimulation as the election coverage itself. DSo often when I read the Times I think, "Manipulative sniping." You didn't just get it wrong, you tried to get it wrong.
If you want to be a paper that snipes, dole out the sniping in equitable portions. Did you get it wrong about Trump? That's not even the right question. The issue is that continual propping up of Clinton by you (and others) led to polling with poor shelf life, as well as a rancid smell emanating from it. Alas, few people read the Times in the voting booths.
I expected a higher standard from the Times, from PBS. No more. The sniping innuendo continues, and has actually made me feel, about Trump, "Good for you for firing back." Ridiculous jabs about how will he choose between his tower and the White House? or whether a Trump presidency spells the end of fashion at the White House. It's tabloid mentality dressed up in journalistic trimmings. I guess you have some readers who like that. But let's call a spade a spade.
It surprises me to realize that I respect Donald Trump more than I respect the NY Times. Because of his efforts and in spite of powerful adversaries, he won. Yes, I believe he is a winner. Because of the Times' failure to do its job, to bring objective information to its readers, we are all very possibly going to be losers. But who knows.
To see oursels as ithers see us!" - Robert Burns
The Times' post-election narrative suffers from the same dissimulation as the election coverage itself. DSo often when I read the Times I think, "Manipulative sniping." You didn't just get it wrong, you tried to get it wrong.
If you want to be a paper that snipes, dole out the sniping in equitable portions. Did you get it wrong about Trump? That's not even the right question. The issue is that continual propping up of Clinton by you (and others) led to polling with poor shelf life, as well as a rancid smell emanating from it. Alas, few people read the Times in the voting booths.
I expected a higher standard from the Times, from PBS. No more. The sniping innuendo continues, and has actually made me feel, about Trump, "Good for you for firing back." Ridiculous jabs about how will he choose between his tower and the White House? or whether a Trump presidency spells the end of fashion at the White House. It's tabloid mentality dressed up in journalistic trimmings. I guess you have some readers who like that. But let's call a spade a spade.
It surprises me to realize that I respect Donald Trump more than I respect the NY Times. Because of his efforts and in spite of powerful adversaries, he won. Yes, I believe he is a winner. Because of the Times' failure to do its job, to bring objective information to its readers, we are all very possibly going to be losers. But who knows.
11
Of all the places blame for the election could be placed, I lay it squarely at your feet. You and the rest of mainstream media did exactly as the DNC told you to do. Had you called them out when the attempted to subvert the primary and had you and your chums treated Senator Sanders with the respect he deserved, NONE of this would have happened.
28
too little too late
what you did over the last year in your relentless biased cover in favor of HRC and against bernie has forever changed how i see the times and cant be easily forgiven
you are as much to blame for trump -
you promoted hrc and silenced and belittled bernie -
you are part of the problem -
you deserve blame
and when the history is written about this you will come out badly
paper of record indeed
ps - fire nate silver and his worthless reporting
what you did over the last year in your relentless biased cover in favor of HRC and against bernie has forever changed how i see the times and cant be easily forgiven
you are as much to blame for trump -
you promoted hrc and silenced and belittled bernie -
you are part of the problem -
you deserve blame
and when the history is written about this you will come out badly
paper of record indeed
ps - fire nate silver and his worthless reporting
35
Nate Silver left the Times years ago.
The Times also needs to reexamine itself, not just continue on as usual. Why was there so little examination of Trump's position on climate change? How about analysis of Trump's horrible economic policies? Besides Paul Krugman's columns, the Times spent most of its time in Trump's juvenile world of brag and insult or poring over polls that turned out to be very, very wrong.
This election will have terrible results for all of humanity. The sad thing is that the issues were never considered. The Times needs more analysis and real news. And above all humility.
This election will have terrible results for all of humanity. The sad thing is that the issues were never considered. The Times needs more analysis and real news. And above all humility.
10
Here is what makes the New York Times a truly great newspaper.
Despite the fact that you mistakenly assumed that Secretary Clinton was going to win the election, in your Saturday, November 12, 2016 issue, you had, on the front page, a fascinating article on the migration of cuckoos from wetlands in Beijing to Somalia and Ethiopia!
Bravo, Times! All is forgiven!
Despite the fact that you mistakenly assumed that Secretary Clinton was going to win the election, in your Saturday, November 12, 2016 issue, you had, on the front page, a fascinating article on the migration of cuckoos from wetlands in Beijing to Somalia and Ethiopia!
Bravo, Times! All is forgiven!
11
Mine has decided not to migrate. He just stays in my clock all year round.
4
Unfortunately, I didn't see you bringing independence and fairness to the reporting on the campaigns. I saw false equivalency. I saw stories that were carried in the alternative press ignored by the Times. It caused me to begin to read ten or eleven other news sites. I would hope from here out the Times truly comes to report truthfully, fearlessly. I know Donald Trump has threatened to harm the press. This is a time when the press, especially the mainstream press, needs to tighten up, stand up, be real. I'm saying to you, please improve. I'm still a subscriber, but there have been moments when I wondered why. I'm a citizen of this country. I need to be able to rely upon you for deep truth, not stories that garner clicks or sell papers. Trump has been accused of raping a thirteen-year-old. The woman in question has come forward, albeit in great fear, having had her life and her family's lives threatened. We may not know the true details of all of this story, but it is happening. I've not read about it in the Times yet, though. It's critical. We have elected a serial sexual predator. We can't look the other way. This is the kind of thing that needs to be covered. Trump's ties to Russia need to be kept in view. His promise to imprison 2-3 million immigrants is shocking because there may be far less than one million who have any kind of criminal record. Will we see concentration camps? He wants to privatize roads and highways. Please, report on these things.
11
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but all I see in this "re-dedication" is a promise to urinate all over the next president after drooling all over the previous one for 8 years. This is exactly what I would expect from the NYT. Give me a call when you REALLY decide to become a news organization again.
15
Boffo!
You've managed to write a self congratulatory apology. That's truly extraordinary.
We all have opinions.
But the Times went well over the line in expressing its opinions in news stories, so far over the line that its generally obedient Public Editor actually called you out on it- but only with a late edit after being shamed into doing so based upon reader comments.
Funny how that public editor was quickly shown the door after that. She broke, however unwillingly, with the Times' line: "Whatever Sanders promises is objectively unrealistic because he won't be elected and if he is, Congress will block everything."
Well, looks like you need to do a lot of rewrites for all those Clinton promises you praised.
I like your writing NY Times.
But I often feel as though I'm being lectured to by some kid reporter.
Believe me, your readers are smart enough to notice. Some of your readers might even be smarter and better qualified than you. Shocking!
So don't talk down to us.
Don't assume we are stupid.
Even if you choose to continue on unchanged- and there is every indication from this "apology" that you have learned NOTHING- don't think we don't notice.
Just listen to your fanboys and girls in the comments here. They should give you the justification you need to keep going in this clueless direction.
Just so you know, even with all your flaws, I will miss you when you are gone.
You've managed to write a self congratulatory apology. That's truly extraordinary.
We all have opinions.
But the Times went well over the line in expressing its opinions in news stories, so far over the line that its generally obedient Public Editor actually called you out on it- but only with a late edit after being shamed into doing so based upon reader comments.
Funny how that public editor was quickly shown the door after that. She broke, however unwillingly, with the Times' line: "Whatever Sanders promises is objectively unrealistic because he won't be elected and if he is, Congress will block everything."
Well, looks like you need to do a lot of rewrites for all those Clinton promises you praised.
I like your writing NY Times.
But I often feel as though I'm being lectured to by some kid reporter.
Believe me, your readers are smart enough to notice. Some of your readers might even be smarter and better qualified than you. Shocking!
So don't talk down to us.
Don't assume we are stupid.
Even if you choose to continue on unchanged- and there is every indication from this "apology" that you have learned NOTHING- don't think we don't notice.
Just listen to your fanboys and girls in the comments here. They should give you the justification you need to keep going in this clueless direction.
Just so you know, even with all your flaws, I will miss you when you are gone.
20
There is a lot that can be said for close examination of the Times and other media and the covertage of this election season.
But the thing that absolutely freaked me out was the Times reporting prominently, at least on the online version, every single tweet of Trump's. Since when is Twitter a real news source? Maybe when verified or useful in a time of crisis or a terrorist event, but there seemed to be zero oversight of Trump's tweets, and the media simply gave free visibility/advertising to the campaign and all of his terrible comments that aroused the worst in the populace. Free and unexamined. Appalling!
But the thing that absolutely freaked me out was the Times reporting prominently, at least on the online version, every single tweet of Trump's. Since when is Twitter a real news source? Maybe when verified or useful in a time of crisis or a terrorist event, but there seemed to be zero oversight of Trump's tweets, and the media simply gave free visibility/advertising to the campaign and all of his terrible comments that aroused the worst in the populace. Free and unexamined. Appalling!
8
Ethan Coen got it right in his Sunday editorial...the media is as much to blame for the election results as the people who didn't vote. 18 months of nothing but Trump...really? Haven't you heard that anyone with a twitter account is now a news/ruse outlet? You have been my paper for 60+ years and I am so disappointed in what and how you report the most important issues of our day. What rust belt or mid-west reader would/could trust what they read here? Less disdain and more truth would be a start.
4
I too am just worn out by stories for which the main source is "Facebook posts" or "Twitter rants." It's reporting at its most lazy and most stupid. The formula is to see something trending on social media, find a few reactions -- maybe from an academic or over-the-hill pol -- and boom, you're done. Just mindless and an abrogation of one of journalism's most profound responsibility, to reflect a community back to itself accurately and intelligently.
1
Look at your headlines today! When will you report the actuality of this situation instead of trying to normalize the terrifying people that you are skirting around.
15
Then start by investigating electronic voting machines and whether or not they can be flipped, as has been stated on democracynow.org.
3
Wow, Subscriptions must be being cancelled at a phenomenal rate for you guys to be begging for loyalty!
Why don't you let us know that THIS PAPER WILL BE LOYAL TO ITS READERS and give us facts, instead of elitist advertiser/stockholder opinions!
Why don't you let us know that THIS PAPER WILL BE LOYAL TO ITS READERS and give us facts, instead of elitist advertiser/stockholder opinions!
23
Seeing with open eyes
OPEN your EYES. The times has had a spike up in subscribers since Trump lost the polpular vote.
OPEN your EYES. The times has had a spike up in subscribers since Trump lost the polpular vote.
2
I would expect no less from the NYT....MY paper.
4
I did not support Trump. But throughout the run-up to the election, I read the NYT daily and have been disappointed in the lack of fairness in coverage - Trumps flaws on page 1; Clinton's flaws on page 27. Adding to the "cloud" hanging over the future, is the profound sense of disappointment I have that reputable media such as the NYT have lost their credibility. Just how - if at all - can you reclaim it??
Arthur Schwartz
Tucson, AZ
Arthur Schwartz
Tucson, AZ
13
I am outside but inside. My spouse works for The Times, so I am aware on a first hand basis of the seriousness with which they take their responsibility.
They're journalists. They want to get it first, and they want to get it right. That's how they think. A lot of them strike me as kinda weird, but smart and fiercely dedicated. Why wouldn't they be?
They're journalists. They want to get it first, and they want to get it right. That's how they think. A lot of them strike me as kinda weird, but smart and fiercely dedicated. Why wouldn't they be?
7
I'm among those who will continue to support the Times despite the failings so on display in this election. I hope that among the changes you institute are more robust supports for the investigative journalism we will need to protect our country. You also need to use direct, factual language -- not buzz words like "alt-right." White nationalism is more accurate. Trump's utter lack of ethics in hiring his children even as he creates a sham "trust" need to be a priority. And why not have a beat that includes exposing the hatemongers on all sides of our reeling country?
16
There is an 84% chance that I will discontinue my subscription.
29
Thank you for your letter to readers. I deeply value an independent, free press. You are the Fourth Estate and essential to the front line of Democracy.
The addage, "there is always room for improvement", rings true for all of us; the NYT & we readers. I appreciate the NYT's commitment to assess their failings in this past election cycle. I look forward to indepth, aggressive, investigative, professional journalism
I believe understanding this election will require more than few day's retrospection. There are numerable unanswered questions regarding news coverage, polling methodolgy/validity, the fundamental values of our nation, foreign/domestic interference in our political process, the structure of our two-party system, , the list is a long & complex one.
An independent, free press is an essential player in helping us formulate our answers to these questions by providing fact-based, indepth reporting as well as a balanced editorial page.
I will continue to read the NYT, along with other independent news sources; domestic & abroad. I have no intention of "shooting the messenger " when we most need 'him'.
The addage, "there is always room for improvement", rings true for all of us; the NYT & we readers. I appreciate the NYT's commitment to assess their failings in this past election cycle. I look forward to indepth, aggressive, investigative, professional journalism
I believe understanding this election will require more than few day's retrospection. There are numerable unanswered questions regarding news coverage, polling methodolgy/validity, the fundamental values of our nation, foreign/domestic interference in our political process, the structure of our two-party system, , the list is a long & complex one.
An independent, free press is an essential player in helping us formulate our answers to these questions by providing fact-based, indepth reporting as well as a balanced editorial page.
I will continue to read the NYT, along with other independent news sources; domestic & abroad. I have no intention of "shooting the messenger " when we most need 'him'.
2
Your misreading of what the Times is and how it ably assists in the management of the sham of democracy and the concentration of wealth and power is bracing. I beg you to reconsider. You could start with the basics: Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.
Thank you for the apology. I remain a proud reader of the NYT, and we all share in missing some of the hidden undercurrents of this election. Those of us who argued for Hillary over Bernie certainly underestimated the Trump base, which Bernie also appealed to. We underestimated the power of targeted negative social media to enhance Hillary's negatives. Why didn't they do the same against Trump? I recommend that everyone who wants to understand this election read last weeks Bloomberg Businessweek, "Why the Trump Machine is Built to last," by Green and Issenberg. They reveal that the Trump campaign used social media, mostly Facebook, to suppress essential voter turnout for Hillary in key, battleground states, with very ugly messages that when to her supporters only, in those areas. NIcholas Kristof's latest piece "Lies in Guise of News in the Trump Era" is also must reading. We will have to work against this trend of the misuse of social media. I propose that we study the problem, and ask Facebook to block political hate groups from places like Macedonia, that interfere in our elections because for them it is simply profitable to sell hateful smears.
3
I feel the exact opposite. Every day I counted the number of NYT headlines with "Trump" in them – versus the number with "Clinton." And nearly every day, his count was higher. His views, his shenanigans, his tweets, our outrage – were all given more space than hers. For people who don’t bother to read anything but headlines, it was a clear sign that Trump was more important than Clinton. In the end, this was a yard sign election – everywhere I went (and I traveled a lot these last few months) I saw Trump signs in front yards and local businesses (customers be damned!) and littering every highway. Clinton signs? Far and few, even in liberal bastions. Every news story, no matter the outlet, led with Trump. Trump Trump Trump. We were Trumped to death – some mornings I’d wake up and the first thought I’d have was “Trump.” It was Orwell’s “Thought Police” run amok – all the way to the White House. So stop beating yourself up. You jumped on the Trump train same as everyone else – for good reason. He presented a clear and present danger. I just wish more people actually read your stories and realized the warnings you bleated out every day. Please don’t stop now. We need you.
3
I don't think the point is that the paper didn't get on the Trump train. Rather that it failed to see the trump train coming. As in - "underestimating his support among American voters".
1
Yes, NYT endorsed Hillary rightfully.
Many are still bitter about Bernie after spectacular loss. Did really anyone listen their debate closely? Bernie was the other side of extreme of Donald that there were tons of diagnosis, anger with one note but hardly no solution, policy or method to cured the illness. Also it's not just domestic/economic issues, Hillary by far more equipped with foreign policy. Hillary's distrust, lies are all coming from innuendo of years of harassment, eroding her credibility, let alone despising female competency by male counterparts. That's the product of Hillary's distrust. We do not deserve her talent and ability to govern. And at least with all the mistakes NYT made like equating her to that vulgar shady man, you did a right thing but still fell short .
Many are still bitter about Bernie after spectacular loss. Did really anyone listen their debate closely? Bernie was the other side of extreme of Donald that there were tons of diagnosis, anger with one note but hardly no solution, policy or method to cured the illness. Also it's not just domestic/economic issues, Hillary by far more equipped with foreign policy. Hillary's distrust, lies are all coming from innuendo of years of harassment, eroding her credibility, let alone despising female competency by male counterparts. That's the product of Hillary's distrust. We do not deserve her talent and ability to govern. And at least with all the mistakes NYT made like equating her to that vulgar shady man, you did a right thing but still fell short .
3
Your comment reveals that you missed what this election was about. No one advocating a centrist, business as usual, stay the course pragmatism was ever going to be elected. Clinton represented most everything people rightfully wanted to denounce and defeat.
This was a change election. Clinton was the very definition of a status quo candidate. She was arrogant and tone deaf and clueless, as was the DNC.
As was the New York Times. Hence this bizarre letter from those who publish it.
The right took the initiative and rejected 16 other candidates who represented the status quo. The Democratic machine and the liberal sheep who prop it up could not muster the smarts and will to nominate Sanders, the candidate who understood that people are sick to death of being lied to about power and class and the rigged game that is corporate capitalism.
Clinton kept saying everything is fine. Things are not fine.
And now, because of these failures, we have fascism. That's called history repeating itself. Yet it still won't change the liberal mindset. They are already accommodating and normalizing fascism. Read the news coverage of, say, Steve Bannon's appointment to a high-level White House position. His history has been scrubbed nearly clean. Poof!
History. Here we go again.
This was a change election. Clinton was the very definition of a status quo candidate. She was arrogant and tone deaf and clueless, as was the DNC.
As was the New York Times. Hence this bizarre letter from those who publish it.
The right took the initiative and rejected 16 other candidates who represented the status quo. The Democratic machine and the liberal sheep who prop it up could not muster the smarts and will to nominate Sanders, the candidate who understood that people are sick to death of being lied to about power and class and the rigged game that is corporate capitalism.
Clinton kept saying everything is fine. Things are not fine.
And now, because of these failures, we have fascism. That's called history repeating itself. Yet it still won't change the liberal mindset. They are already accommodating and normalizing fascism. Read the news coverage of, say, Steve Bannon's appointment to a high-level White House position. His history has been scrubbed nearly clean. Poof!
History. Here we go again.
1
Sum of election results = Bailed-out Wall St. + Bummed-out Main St. - Clinton Interregnum Crash and Burn...
If you think it's fair for your reporters to collaborate with the Clinton Crime Family and twist Trump's words to put YOUR REPORTERS' racist condemnable words in Trump's mouth you're still deluded by your own elitist self-righteousness. Fire the collaborators and appoint an INDEPENDENT investigator to learn where you went wrong--and make the findings public. Better yet, why not submit the NYT to the same remedy you demand for everyone else: Strong government regulation of mainstream media outlets who can't handle and abuse their free press responsibilities.
3
Respectfully, I read the Times to get the East Coast liberal elitist view of our world. The paper's group think is so far from what the vast majority of our citizenry deals with, think, and believes on a daily basis.
The mind set that the liberal candidate was the only reasonable choice is why the Times got it wrong. Period. There is no independent thought process in the newsroom, or around the editor's conference table.
It has been obvious for decades to those looking from the outside in.
The mind set that the liberal candidate was the only reasonable choice is why the Times got it wrong. Period. There is no independent thought process in the newsroom, or around the editor's conference table.
It has been obvious for decades to those looking from the outside in.
3
I am 62 years old and grew up on the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, i.e., NBC, CBS, ABC, the WSJ. etc. All of you will NEVER regain my trust. You have proven that you all are incapable of being anything but totally biased. You bought and sold us, and are a part of the problem plaguing our country; you are certainly not eligible to be considered part of the solution. SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR ILK!
4
I have to say the Times coverage reeks of the same false equivalency that many media outlets are guilty of. ( save Washington Post, maybe, and even they had their moments, too). So much time to emails and less time to the programs and change that was downright inspirational about Clinton's platform. The truth of the matter is while I greatly admire your publication, I also would like to know how Clinton's emails got more coverage than operatives and Russian officials who said that there are close ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, an alliance which may have downright apocalyptic consequences? Or how about this is the first election to happen when LEGAL and widespread voter suppression ( thanks, Supreme Court) happened, which was meant to target Democratic voters? Do better, NYT.
1
I have great concern for the our news organizations around the United States. Our new elected President has already started to try to intimidate the NY Times with his Twitter addiction. I hope that the NY Times and all other major news outlets will be objective but still report the hard facts and stand up to the bully we have elected as President. This is one of the major pillars of our democracy.
1
I never saw anyone pat himself on the back while giving an apology. You blew it. Here's my question for you: In any other business, heads would roll for such a failure to carry out such a fundamental mission. Is Dean Baquet out the door? Will any of the managing editors, copy editors or reporters who not only missed the story, but lead the cheerleading for Hillary see pink slips? I'm guessing not, unless you disguise their firings in your upcoming layoffs/buyouts. This was worse than Jayson Blair. Your paper, as an institution, is broken. Now go hire some real journalists and fix it.
9
Keep it real - squash him like a bug!
1
You write/publish in your paper that you were the 2016 election "with agility and creativity" I imagine your agility was spent in searching and researching all the negative aspects which could destroy the life of a man and your creativity was based on the most destructive stories of a political candidate. In the 18 months of the political campaign you did not write a single positive sentence about the Republican candidate'
In your words I read precisely what you imply that you DID NOT report "honestly, without fear or favor" much less "reflecting all political perspectives"
I am a Democrat and did vote for HRC. I have also being a subscriber to you paper for almost 50 years but I lost all respect for your reporting and never thought that the New York Times could be so blatantly biased.
In your words I read precisely what you imply that you DID NOT report "honestly, without fear or favor" much less "reflecting all political perspectives"
I am a Democrat and did vote for HRC. I have also being a subscriber to you paper for almost 50 years but I lost all respect for your reporting and never thought that the New York Times could be so blatantly biased.
6
Para 1. This is the opener? Meaningless self-congratulations. Completely tone deaf to our very real post-election fears.
Para 2. Pivot stuffed into a paragraph-sentence string to keep you moving along without stopping to think. Translation of the beginning: It wasn’t only the NYT that failed to report the breath and depth of the support for Trump! And he was so unconventional! (Really? Because holding rallies and tweeting is so newfangled. To what “unconventional” activities are you referring?) And now the pivot. Let’s now stop talking about how the NYT failed to do it’s job. Let’s talk about Trump.
Para 3. Translation: don’t worry, we’ll keep taking Trump literally but not seriously. Which is how we COMPLETELY MISSED the biggest story of any of our lifetimes.
Para 4. Translation: please don’t unsubscribe.
Dear Author and Dean,
In equal part to rededicating yourself to fairly and independently scrutinize the Trump presidency (no one doubts this) you need to more accurately and fairly reflect the diversity of American views in your paper. Police your creeping tendency to view Americans with whom you do not agree (or outright despise) through the lens of your worldview. Dig into why voters who supported Trump are in pain in the first place. Because THAT is why Trump won. Not because of “unconventionality” (whatever that means) but because millions of decent Americans are suffering and crying out for change. NYT, start listening. - a reader
Para 2. Pivot stuffed into a paragraph-sentence string to keep you moving along without stopping to think. Translation of the beginning: It wasn’t only the NYT that failed to report the breath and depth of the support for Trump! And he was so unconventional! (Really? Because holding rallies and tweeting is so newfangled. To what “unconventional” activities are you referring?) And now the pivot. Let’s now stop talking about how the NYT failed to do it’s job. Let’s talk about Trump.
Para 3. Translation: don’t worry, we’ll keep taking Trump literally but not seriously. Which is how we COMPLETELY MISSED the biggest story of any of our lifetimes.
Para 4. Translation: please don’t unsubscribe.
Dear Author and Dean,
In equal part to rededicating yourself to fairly and independently scrutinize the Trump presidency (no one doubts this) you need to more accurately and fairly reflect the diversity of American views in your paper. Police your creeping tendency to view Americans with whom you do not agree (or outright despise) through the lens of your worldview. Dig into why voters who supported Trump are in pain in the first place. Because THAT is why Trump won. Not because of “unconventionality” (whatever that means) but because millions of decent Americans are suffering and crying out for change. NYT, start listening. - a reader
4
Perhaps you can redouble your efforts to uncover what's in trump's tax returns, including his ties to foreign interests, charitable contributions, tax rate; to provide details of the public allegations in the most disturbing of the lawsuits against him; to question, forcefully, the propriety of his children assisting with the selection of a cabinet whose decisions could very well influence their business interests, and shine a light on the absurdity of the notion that daddy will not be consulted on business decisions; and to uncover the corruption involved with Jim comey's two stabs at tipping the scales for Trump, all before December 19th, so that electors cast their votes with the full information that the voters were deprived of. No easy feat, but if anyone can accomplish this, the journalists at the Gray Lady can. And given that Hillary Clinton may well have won the popular vote by two points, the voters need you to press into service your considerable journalistic talents and help us out of the mess for which the media in general, including the Times, bears a great deal of responsibility.
3
What an avalanche of criticism from across the spectrum. I have long used a jaundiced eye to filter the in-depth, fact-checked reporting of the NYT from the undercurrent of urban elitism in both hard news and features. This past year saw an even deeper move that way in political coverage. Pinch, you are no Punch. Hand it over to Paunch and hope the kid surrounds himself with reporters not sycophants. And I would repeat an earlier comment, the executives should read every post. I read 560 and I don't have any skin in the game. You have more in it than you recognize.
6
The publisher and executive editor presume, mistakenly, readers' loyalty. It is false that the Times covered the presidential election without "favor". The newspaper's bias toward the loser infected its reporting during both the primaries and the national campaign.
After telling us, for weeks, that the likelihood of a Democratic victory was in the 90% vicinity, the Times might have apologized for its foolish reliance on polls that did not truly sample public opinion. It also might have acknowledged that it allowed its columnists to use language about the victor that brought the publication down to his level of comment ("disgusting human being") for which it deplored him.
Like the party with which it is aligned, the Times was, and will probably remain, oblivious to the working class people in red states and red counties. Its form of "liberalism" is reserved for upper-middle class urbanites who have prescriptions for changing the country that do not entail any cost to their privileges. The formula is as unwise in a journalistic sense as it is in a political one.
One may still read the Times daily for its breadth of information. From that the Times should not infer any loyalty or trust. The paper of record has earned just the opposite.
After telling us, for weeks, that the likelihood of a Democratic victory was in the 90% vicinity, the Times might have apologized for its foolish reliance on polls that did not truly sample public opinion. It also might have acknowledged that it allowed its columnists to use language about the victor that brought the publication down to his level of comment ("disgusting human being") for which it deplored him.
Like the party with which it is aligned, the Times was, and will probably remain, oblivious to the working class people in red states and red counties. Its form of "liberalism" is reserved for upper-middle class urbanites who have prescriptions for changing the country that do not entail any cost to their privileges. The formula is as unwise in a journalistic sense as it is in a political one.
One may still read the Times daily for its breadth of information. From that the Times should not infer any loyalty or trust. The paper of record has earned just the opposite.
11
I completely agree with everyone who is pointing out that the treatment of Bernie Sanders was a terrible mistake. But I think there are even deeper problems at this paper. The Times shares Hillary's elitist view of the world, as well as her obsession with identity politics, which manifested itself as a deep desire to have the "First Female President" headline on November 9th, no matter what. The Times loves to look at everything through the prism of race and gender, often stoking very divisive fires. They don't seem to have fully grasped the fact that economic inequality is the defining issue of our time, one that resonates with people on an emotional level, and dwarfs all other issues. Maybe it's time to add some renters to the editorial staff?
18
My politics, I know, is not the politics of the NY Times staff or the vast majority of its readers. But I appreciate fine writing, which almost every article in the times contains. I did have to wonder, however, how the Times could say, one week before the election, that Clinton had an 89% chance of winning the election when her lead in the polls was 1-4% (and Trump lead nationally, in other polls, e.g. USC/LA Times, polls, I read, that were NOT factored in to the NY Times prediction). It did make me think that the Times only wanted what IT wanted to hear/see/report.
6
The failures came long before the missed predictions. When elections are covered like entertaining and dramatic TV reality shows, guess what? The best reality show host wins, not the best person for elected office.
Stop the breathless coverage of polls, personalitites, and partisan sound-bites! Help us sift the wheat from the chaff in the blizzard of unverified, uncritiqued content burying us alive. Challenge the memes, don't run with them. Judge ALL the candidates by the same standards. Look into ALL their backgrounds. Trump stole all the oxygen. Clinton coverage was reduced to old GOP "he said, she said" stories. Bernie Sanders got too little coverage as a real candidate. He was a cipher with no biography, and never evaluated as a serious candidate -- for better or worse. Same with most of the Republicans.
Everything was reduced to superheroes and supervillains fighting with superpowers -- not ordinary flesh-and-blood politicians, doing exactly the things politicians have been doing since Athens in 500 BC.
I still can't believe we've reeached a point that no one seems upset a the significance of foreign hackers or the FBI conspiring to influenced our elections.
Just another suspenseful twist in the exciting new shows "Pass the Nuclear Football!" "Survivor: SCOTUS," and "Lost: Real Legislators in Congress."
Well, who know when the shoe might be on a different foot, and we can watch: "Survivor: Who Will Own America?"
Stop the breathless coverage of polls, personalitites, and partisan sound-bites! Help us sift the wheat from the chaff in the blizzard of unverified, uncritiqued content burying us alive. Challenge the memes, don't run with them. Judge ALL the candidates by the same standards. Look into ALL their backgrounds. Trump stole all the oxygen. Clinton coverage was reduced to old GOP "he said, she said" stories. Bernie Sanders got too little coverage as a real candidate. He was a cipher with no biography, and never evaluated as a serious candidate -- for better or worse. Same with most of the Republicans.
Everything was reduced to superheroes and supervillains fighting with superpowers -- not ordinary flesh-and-blood politicians, doing exactly the things politicians have been doing since Athens in 500 BC.
I still can't believe we've reeached a point that no one seems upset a the significance of foreign hackers or the FBI conspiring to influenced our elections.
Just another suspenseful twist in the exciting new shows "Pass the Nuclear Football!" "Survivor: SCOTUS," and "Lost: Real Legislators in Congress."
Well, who know when the shoe might be on a different foot, and we can watch: "Survivor: Who Will Own America?"
17
I think your paper, and all unbiased media outlets, should shut down the editorial sections of your companies (not the reader letters or independent opinion pieces); stop partying with the people you cover; demand that reporters live by similar rules as the Hatch Act; and stop clearing articles with anyone other than company supervisors. Do these things or call your company what it is - a news source with a bias.
9
People actually read the op/ed pages? I always thought we were just supposed to wrap fish with this section.
3
I don't think the Times did a horrible job, as compared to much of the media that helped create the Trump "brand" that got him elected (he didn't need to advertise much, the media took care of that). Some of the comments are ridiculous, the Times in many cases did publish the facts and that is the problem, the polls were wrong and the Times forgot one of the tenets of journalism, to be skeptical of 'conventional wisdom' or 'facts' not based on verifiable sources. Conventional wisdom was the polls were wrong and Trump couldn't have the kind of support they were showing, and I think that affected the reporting.
Among other things, the Times needed reporters on the ground talking to people, a wide variety of people, to see what they were feeling. Sure, among Trump supporters were the rednecks and other bigots, but did they go to Michigan and talk to blue collar voters? Did they talk to potential black voters, and young voters, and ask them what they felt about Hillary as a candidate? What I saw were broad assumptions, that for example, black voters would turn out to support Hillary;they assume faced with Trump, young people would vote for hillary (both did, but not in numbers). I think if they had gone to ground, so to speak, they would have seen what was coming.
Among other things, the Times needed reporters on the ground talking to people, a wide variety of people, to see what they were feeling. Sure, among Trump supporters were the rednecks and other bigots, but did they go to Michigan and talk to blue collar voters? Did they talk to potential black voters, and young voters, and ask them what they felt about Hillary as a candidate? What I saw were broad assumptions, that for example, black voters would turn out to support Hillary;they assume faced with Trump, young people would vote for hillary (both did, but not in numbers). I think if they had gone to ground, so to speak, they would have seen what was coming.
2
The problem with this indirect, vague letter Is shown in its claim that Trump is an enigmatic figure. In fact, Trump is an open book, someone who tweets his every impulse at 3 a.m. In his own lexicon, he tells it like it is. This is not to be confused with telling the truth. Or with consistency. The only honesty he is capable of is that he will honestly tell his audience what he thinks it wants to hear and what will benefit him at any particular moment. In this he is absolutely consistent and you can count on it. In short, he is a very successful and expert conman. None of this takes any great perception to see.
But throughout the whole election cycle the Times couldn't get its collective mind wrapped around the situation in front of it. The coverage of Trump was alternately dismissive, cheeky, fawning, and mostly, conventional. It was a very flat footed effort. In contrast, the Washington Post was consistently sharper in its coverage. Over there one had the sense that they took Trump more seriously and therefore bothered to write actual journalism about him.
As for Hillary Clinton, the coverage was paradoxically slanted in her direction and yet anemic. Unlike Trump who was invariably featured and pictured at the top of the homepage, Clinton was an afterthought. Her policies were largely ignored. Her campaign was assumed to be winning, but otherwise she was buried under all the clueless coverage of Trump. This did a disservice to both Clinton and the voters.
But throughout the whole election cycle the Times couldn't get its collective mind wrapped around the situation in front of it. The coverage of Trump was alternately dismissive, cheeky, fawning, and mostly, conventional. It was a very flat footed effort. In contrast, the Washington Post was consistently sharper in its coverage. Over there one had the sense that they took Trump more seriously and therefore bothered to write actual journalism about him.
As for Hillary Clinton, the coverage was paradoxically slanted in her direction and yet anemic. Unlike Trump who was invariably featured and pictured at the top of the homepage, Clinton was an afterthought. Her policies were largely ignored. Her campaign was assumed to be winning, but otherwise she was buried under all the clueless coverage of Trump. This did a disservice to both Clinton and the voters.
7
The so-called leftist media establishment, exemplified by Charlie Rose aka CBS/PBS,the other major TV networks and NYT, bear an as yet unacknowledged responsibility for the rise to power of the now materializing before our eyes reactionary right. I, for one, will expect greater vigilance, determination and investigative scholarship with some sorely needed internal but observable shake-ups before believing that any of you have regained the right to earn the trust of "We, the People!"
3
I was already perceiving some bias for Clinton when The Times published their "This Newspaper Endorses Hillary Clinton" piece. The Bernie Sanders coverage showed complete misunderstanding or care. The Trump "attack" pieces (although based on facts, given the candidate's explosive remarks), kept addressing anything-you-can-fire-at-Trump mentality, and gave importance to issues such as his personality, wealth, past, present and future that it felt part of the propaganda machinery.
Continuing with your lack of coverage for the Panama Papers story, it got me suspicious about your actual ethos. It seemed that since the Times didn't got the story first-hand, the story wasn't worth commenting, no matter it's relevance or depth.
NYTimes. You have seriously disappointed me. Your failed reporting choices carry the same
weight and stigma as president elect Trump biased remarks. On so desperately wanting to demonize the candidate, you ended up demonizing yourselves.
Continuing with your lack of coverage for the Panama Papers story, it got me suspicious about your actual ethos. It seemed that since the Times didn't got the story first-hand, the story wasn't worth commenting, no matter it's relevance or depth.
NYTimes. You have seriously disappointed me. Your failed reporting choices carry the same
weight and stigma as president elect Trump biased remarks. On so desperately wanting to demonize the candidate, you ended up demonizing yourselves.
10
Once again NYT has stealth-edited an article to change its substance. The original Letter to Readers, published Nov. 11, contained the sentence "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign." This sentence was quietly removed in the Nov. 13 version.
What you should have done was to be upfront about it. "We have removed the sentence, 'We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,' because, after careful reflection, we regret having said that."
Instead, NYT perpetuated the type of less-than-honest stealth-editing that has, in the past, angered and perplexed readers. Many will remember the time an article favorable to Sen. Bernie Sanders' candidacy was stealth-edited to change its tone 180 degrees.
What you should have done was to be upfront about it. "We have removed the sentence, 'We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,' because, after careful reflection, we regret having said that."
Instead, NYT perpetuated the type of less-than-honest stealth-editing that has, in the past, angered and perplexed readers. Many will remember the time an article favorable to Sen. Bernie Sanders' candidacy was stealth-edited to change its tone 180 degrees.
18
Yes, good eye for spotting that!
NYTs please explain why the sentence was removed.
NYTs please explain why the sentence was removed.
1
I remember when after George W Bush was elected and so many were lamenting how it could be possible, in the "surprise" aftermath, the NYT decided they needed to assign staff to a "Christian conservative" beat or such. What followed was a series of articles that, as I remember, started out trying to present the cultural trends and viewpoints of conservatives outside coasts, but gradually and collectively morphed into a condescending portrayal of stereotypes and negative perspectives, which still is the general viewpoint portrayed in the Times. Abortion? They (conservatives) are judgmental, ignorant an lacking compassion. Gay rights? They are bigoted, ignorant and propelled by fear. Sex education and most other topics? They are ignorant. It's in the tone, the adjectives and the anecdotes you use. As long as the paper's owners, editors and staff are predominantly white, highly educated and liberal, nothing will change. And every few years the paper will read the country (the people) wrong. I didn't vote for Trump, although to many I'd probably fall under the label of "Christian, conservative" (and received a graduate degree at NYU in journalism, no less!). I read the Times regularly for its detailed reporting, good writing, and to educate myself on diverse viewpoints. But the bias--oh, the bias!
7
I still keep wondering if your daily meter that kept the odds of a Clinton victory at 85% until the election contributed to a lesser democratic voter turnout.
How could you get it so wildly wrong?
How could you get it so wildly wrong?
6
You write:"Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?"
No, telling us the future is NOT the most important. We need to read the facts and range of positions being taken by key players. We can assess how we think he will govern in the future.
You, The NY Times, told us the outcome of the election and failed miserably.
No, telling us the future is NOT the most important. We need to read the facts and range of positions being taken by key players. We can assess how we think he will govern in the future.
You, The NY Times, told us the outcome of the election and failed miserably.
4
We just need the facts without any added biases. Else we could go to Faux news. Give us the facts and we will figure out what to do with them. We are progressives and we still love folks on the right. So we don't need facts mixed with poison or hatred. We don't like the right wing policies but we still like the politicians. We would like Mr. Trump to succeed when he is right and we will oppose Mr. Trump when his policies are wrong. We would like Mr. Trump to be a president for all Americans. NYT can also try and become a source of information for all Americans. Stop becoming a propaganda channel. Be the light in the darkness....
9
The New York Times and the rest of the media should now have three items at the top of their reporting list:
Russia and Trump money
Russia and Trump money
Russia and Trump money
The deadline is January 20, 2017
Russia and Trump money
Russia and Trump money
Russia and Trump money
The deadline is January 20, 2017
4
America as a whole is not as highly educated as it once was. With television, Hollywood and the internet serving as its main sources of information, the outcome of this election and America's future comes as no surprise. I subscribe to the NYT because I look for information in which I can educate myself and my family at the highest level possible.
Unfortunately, with this election, the Times panicked on the defensive. It is clear that the media elected the President this time around and the people effectively dissolved the government. We now find ourselves in a truly sad and dangerous state of affairs.
Unfortunately, with this election, the Times panicked on the defensive. It is clear that the media elected the President this time around and the people effectively dissolved the government. We now find ourselves in a truly sad and dangerous state of affairs.
2
Where is the coverage of hate crimes occurring in the wake of the election, which have been condemned by the Mayor of NYC? Where is the investigation into reports of voter suppression and discarding of provisional ballots and Russia colluding with the Trump campaign? Why is Bannon not being called out as a white supremacist, which he unabashedly is? The American people can no longer trust three branches of government. We need the Fourth estate more than ever.
9
A mayor condemned a hate crime? Say it isn't so!
An outstanding place to start on the issue of accuracy in reporting would be to always note the difference between people's feelings on "immigrants" versus "illegal immigrants," and "immigration" versus "illegal immigration." Hazing out the distinction because of bias in favor of the legalization of illegal immigrants sullies your paper's reputation. So many on the right favor robust, fair, and pan-global legal immigration to America, instead of an immigration policy backed on the luck of geography. They would happily trade 10 illegal immigrants from Central America for 10 legal immigrants from e.g. Malawi, Kazakhstan, Panama, Laos, Estonia, Chad, Israel, France, Japan, and Ethiopia in a heartbeat. They are not driven by xenophobia -- always easy to "ia" one's opponents -- but by a commitment to fundamental American fairness.
2
The "honesty" rededication sounds like a pretend apology for deeply biased reporting and cynical editorial decisions, all under the cover of electing The Annointed One. And the expression of gratitude for readers' continued loyalty sounds like you want to beg for readers' forgiveness but can't quite bring yourselves to do it.
Will things change at the Times? Not judging by this letter.
Will things change at the Times? Not judging by this letter.
11
one great thing about the election being left behind: we don't have to see bar charts on NYT indicating Clinton winning the presidency with 90% probability every single day.
And a note to your esteemed "statisticians": read up on this concept called correlation you guys. If Michigan's vote for Trump goes toward the upper end of your predicted range for him, e.g. 45% +- 4 points, then in all likelihood, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina will do the same. In other words, the state wins are not independent events, in statistical parlor.
And a note to your esteemed "statisticians": read up on this concept called correlation you guys. If Michigan's vote for Trump goes toward the upper end of your predicted range for him, e.g. 45% +- 4 points, then in all likelihood, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina will do the same. In other words, the state wins are not independent events, in statistical parlor.
6
Day late and a dollar short. Your actions normalized a candidate who should never have stepped a foot on the dais. Once you caught up, the damage was already done.
As a practicing journalist, I have never been more ashamed of the one source I trusted above all others.
There's been much talk about the role of social media in this election, but the fact is, the refusal of the traditional media to actually step up opened those floodgates.
Don't hang your head here, folks. I've no interest in your apologies, and neither do those who are literally getting the beating for your poor judgement.
As a practicing journalist, I have never been more ashamed of the one source I trusted above all others.
There's been much talk about the role of social media in this election, but the fact is, the refusal of the traditional media to actually step up opened those floodgates.
Don't hang your head here, folks. I've no interest in your apologies, and neither do those who are literally getting the beating for your poor judgement.
20
While I count the times as my primary print source, I am at a crossroads. We were handed a mea culpa after your coverage of the run up to the Iraq war as well. As the public relies on you to keep a cool head and be objective, how can we continue to count on your coverage when you get it wrong at the most important moments.
I will continue to read the times, but when my subscription runs out, I'll likely change my reading habits.
I will continue to read the times, but when my subscription runs out, I'll likely change my reading habits.
3
The NYT has some amends to make to the American public for its mostly shoddy work over the past two years. Never before did I truly understand how the media can either educate or mislead the public.
Besides sharing more stories about middle class Americans (and less about 23 million dollar apartments) you could start by bringing back the Metro section to its full coverage.
Thank you.
Besides sharing more stories about middle class Americans (and less about 23 million dollar apartments) you could start by bringing back the Metro section to its full coverage.
Thank you.
11
Yes. Who is in the price range of the NYT fantasy piece on apartments that cost millions. And then they offered places for us to go that were 80 miles from Manhattan, crooning about the positives.
I have been a subscriber to NYT's for about 6 months, not nearly as long as others. And I will continue to subscribe. What happened less than a week ago is monumental in our history and few could have foreseen the outcome.
However, the Times and other honest news outlets must learn from this.
However, the Times and other honest news outlets must learn from this.
1
I guess I read the letter a bit differently than many of the comments I’ve read. The Times didn’t take Trump seriously during the Republican primary and gave him a pass early on when it should have been reporting on his supposed business acumen, repeated lies and evasions, and questionable morals and ethics. So, now is the time to hold the president-elect accountable with quality investigative reporting. Scrutinize his policies, call for his tax records, and tell us about failed promises to the voters.
5
Fire the pollsters and consult your pets instead. My cat could have provided a more nuanced and correct assessment.
5
When they went low you went high ignoring the inconvenience that your tower of righteousness was built on a crooked foundation resting on quicksand.
You fell. Get up.
4
I can see from these comments how deeply divided your country is at present, as is ours in many ways - albeit less publicly.
While I have always admired the American tendency to 'call them as they see them', out loud, intensely, my hope is that, with time, the virulence will moderate.
That will only happen if all voices are heard, going forward.
This election made me realize my own lack of awareness, understanding and respect for conservative perpectives.
I will need your assistance to develop a more balanced perspective.
Counting on you to provide it.
You have my support, for what it's worth.
While I have always admired the American tendency to 'call them as they see them', out loud, intensely, my hope is that, with time, the virulence will moderate.
That will only happen if all voices are heard, going forward.
This election made me realize my own lack of awareness, understanding and respect for conservative perpectives.
I will need your assistance to develop a more balanced perspective.
Counting on you to provide it.
You have my support, for what it's worth.
You tried to incite (not report) all election season----when I called to cancel my subscription (suscriber since 2005), I was asked the reason. I was unable to read both sides of the story and be informed about both candidates---I was told by your employee that I was not the only one cancelling for that reason. I hope your statement is not just about money and luring back suscribers. P.S. My husband and I have three postgraduate degrees between us.
5
A majority of the comments here seem to imply that the NYT's biases and/or failures were somehow responsible for the outcome of the election. Those of you who believe that to be the case are every bit as uninformed as the typical Trump voter.
4
I want to keep my subscription, but have serious concerns about press trends to normalize coverage as if this is just another transition and transfer of power. The press has to keep its critical edge, critical lens and not naturalize the apparent structural collapse of protected protocols for staffing and governing.
The election forecasts from this paper were seriously flawed. What happened?
The coverage of Russian interference and FBI assists fully informed our outcome.
I don't envy you the new work at hand. That said, I have to be able to trust you to keep us grounded in facts and further, to check the breaches of protocol, flagrant violations of law, and pending dismantling of social justice efforts that are the hope of so many nonwhite, non-male citizens.
I will give you a chance, but I cannot read a majority of your columns if they are all Trump, all day long.
You have to choose your ends here. All best for that deliberation.
DFD
The election forecasts from this paper were seriously flawed. What happened?
The coverage of Russian interference and FBI assists fully informed our outcome.
I don't envy you the new work at hand. That said, I have to be able to trust you to keep us grounded in facts and further, to check the breaches of protocol, flagrant violations of law, and pending dismantling of social justice efforts that are the hope of so many nonwhite, non-male citizens.
I will give you a chance, but I cannot read a majority of your columns if they are all Trump, all day long.
You have to choose your ends here. All best for that deliberation.
DFD
2
Liberal, one sided journalism. Clearly biased, elitism. A rigged game to the detriment of the regular guy.
6
subscriber not suscriber in my earlier post cant type thank you for making this change
1
I believe what is needed are reporters and journalists on the ground, not people reading Tweets and FB posts and calling those sources. Every map showed Wisconsin as a blue state, but my family and friends who live there were telling me quite a different story...I preferred trust what I was reading here (I liked the message better). Big mistake. Clearly, the mid-west/south are not reading the NYT.
10
Your blatant bias toward Hillary in this election is just a continuation of your bias for liberal policies which have been apparent for years. When I took journalism classes in my youth the teacher stressed being fair and impartial. It is hard to do because of course people have biases. With the NYTIMES, your biases have become so blatant that many people now discount what you say, especially about political matters. This is a problem for you that I hope you will consider and rectify.
14
I agree, and I doubt that the Times is capable of correcting its ingrained confirmation biases that subtly distort what is claimed to be fair and accurate reporting. I suggest reducing the use of adjectives and adverbs in news stories, and eliminating the thinly-veiled opinionating couched in statements such as "Critics say ..." .
Bias. Treating Trump as a serious candidate was the fault of very news service. Questions to him should only about where he gets his hair dyed and does he really think we believe it covers his head. His tax returns and a series of lies, some regarding the immigrant status of his own wife when she worked here illegally, were never followed up on. CNN and MSNBC followed Trump every word specifically because his language was vile and his message was extreme. Why not ask him why he retweeted the KKK and why so many show up at his rallies with swastikas and confederate flags. No,the networks favored the ratings, not Hilary. Not one charge against her ever panned out.
The Times did a vast disservice to its readers by its relentlessly anti-Trump coverage. I love the comments section and look forward to its expansion to many more stories.
The most consistent theme I saw in the comments section on political stories this year was the confident assertion by the vast majority of liberal commenters that Hillary had the election in the bag.I say this view came in no small part that in every main stream media source they read, they were assured that a Trump victory was impossible, that his voters came from a small base of angry white voters who represent the past.
As an aside, liberals have the odd theory that once these angry aging voters die off, they'll have a permanent majority.
Have you never considered that all of the young liberal urban voters who see as your future, if they are fortune, will grow to be be suburban, family oriented older voters one day, and older voters almost always vote more concersative.
The most consistent theme I saw in the comments section on political stories this year was the confident assertion by the vast majority of liberal commenters that Hillary had the election in the bag.I say this view came in no small part that in every main stream media source they read, they were assured that a Trump victory was impossible, that his voters came from a small base of angry white voters who represent the past.
As an aside, liberals have the odd theory that once these angry aging voters die off, they'll have a permanent majority.
Have you never considered that all of the young liberal urban voters who see as your future, if they are fortune, will grow to be be suburban, family oriented older voters one day, and older voters almost always vote more concersative.
1
Okay, you messed up. We didn't need you to say it, but we would like to understand why and how. On one of the Times podcasts last week, the day after the election, I could hear the professional anguish from the reporters. They were more than red-faced. They were in pain that they got the news wrong and missed the hidden story--and misled their readers. While they, and you, had a lot of company, I could hear their pain. I don't hear much of that pain in this letter. Since kneeling in the snow has gone out of favor, how about telling the story about how the media--not just the Times--got the story wrong and misled your readers. That can begin the process of an apology with a practical step.
1
I was first exposed to the New York Times in prep school way back in 1960. My teacher had each student subscribe to the paper and we would read articles and discuss them in class. "All the news that's fit to print" captured my attention and meant something for a very long time, since it was created in 1897. The Times became one of my go-to papers, along with The Wall Street Journal, for news. In business, I would get the paper delivered first thing in the morning and have read the most important articles before arriving at the office. The Sunday edition for those living in the City, was fabulous.
Yesterday, after learning about Arthur's letter to subscribers, my wife was appalled and strongly suggested I cancel my subscription. For me, giving up The Times will be like giving up my morning hot, strong cup of black coffee. But I know of no other way to send a strong message of my displeasure at what has occurred during this past presidential election and the way coverage of Trump was handled. It is even worse when I consider the coddling that Clinton received. I expect newspapers to report hard news. Yes, I do understand opinion columns and bias. But the media has now hundred of opinion givers who pose as reporters. The New York Times is not alone. But given its stature, and very long history of notable reporting, that is unacceptable. So cancellation is a real likelihood for me. Sorry Arthur, you were asleep at the throttle.
Yesterday, after learning about Arthur's letter to subscribers, my wife was appalled and strongly suggested I cancel my subscription. For me, giving up The Times will be like giving up my morning hot, strong cup of black coffee. But I know of no other way to send a strong message of my displeasure at what has occurred during this past presidential election and the way coverage of Trump was handled. It is even worse when I consider the coddling that Clinton received. I expect newspapers to report hard news. Yes, I do understand opinion columns and bias. But the media has now hundred of opinion givers who pose as reporters. The New York Times is not alone. But given its stature, and very long history of notable reporting, that is unacceptable. So cancellation is a real likelihood for me. Sorry Arthur, you were asleep at the throttle.
2
You turned on a dime because you were so wrong and had to. Your brilliant, often liberal and idealistic staff ended up looking naive and completely out of touch with the country, with their fingers on only their own pulses. As a reader, you've done me no good. Pretty words, soothing thoughts, but fantasy, as it turns out. I read the NYT for news and analysis and when it's so grossly wrong, I might as well be reading fairy tales.
1
What a ridiculous and self-serving "apology" for your disgraceful election coverage. The New York Times has had nothing but a string of failed editors starting with Howell Raines. My suggestion is to clean house starting at the top.
I read my first New York Times in 1960. I read my last one today.
I read my first New York Times in 1960. I read my last one today.
4
Unlike many here, I was appalled at the false equivalencies created in your fluff pieces that held Clinton in equal parts to #45 (that unapologetic racist/sexist/sexual predator will never be my president). In the beginning, equal coverage should have been given to Sanders. You gave #45 an endless stream of free press for over a year without investigating any of his corruptions. You ran with a FBI story about emails that all intelligent people now know came from BreitbartNews (those anti-Semitic fools are now in the White House) I will not be reading the Times like I used to - any American media - it is all corrupt to the core. BBC news here I come. As to the Trump supporters who are upset that people are calling them racist - when you lay with dogs your get lice. Settle in for four years of resistance - the Times and MSM cannot be trusted.
3
I subscribed yesterday. I wanted to support print journalism. President-Elect of the United States of America hires a white-supremacist as his Chief Strategist and you run a fluffy piece about Brietbart and somehow think the Priebus hire deserves more ink. I'm waiting for the subscription office to open at 7:30 so I can cancel. Switching to WaPo. Also I don't see how the recent increase in hate crimes isn't front page worthy.
1
I see that this admittedly oblique and pretty silly letter has gotten the adversaries out in force.
For what it's worth, I wanted to say that as far as I am concerned the NYTimes did exactly its job and did it extremely well. It failed, but like we all have failed. Today's piece "A time for refusal" depicts precisely the way I feel.
So, thank you from one reader, NY Times.
For what it's worth, I wanted to say that as far as I am concerned the NYTimes did exactly its job and did it extremely well. It failed, but like we all have failed. Today's piece "A time for refusal" depicts precisely the way I feel.
So, thank you from one reader, NY Times.
I actually intended to cancel my NYT subscription this week because of the outrageous bias being applied to news reporting. This was notwithstanding all the non-news NYT content that I so enjoy reading.
I hope that Mr Sulzberger is sincere, and I hope that the staff takes this to heart. Just as a surgeon must put aside whatever prejudices she has toward a patient in fulfillment of her Hippocratic oath journalists must put aside their biases to fulfill their responsibility --- a solemn responsibility to inform [and not disinform] the electorate.
I will hang in here
I hope that Mr Sulzberger is sincere, and I hope that the staff takes this to heart. Just as a surgeon must put aside whatever prejudices she has toward a patient in fulfillment of her Hippocratic oath journalists must put aside their biases to fulfill their responsibility --- a solemn responsibility to inform [and not disinform] the electorate.
I will hang in here
2
Kind of sounds like an apology to me..... Not that I hold any love for Trump, but that was the first thing I thought when I received this letter in my email. Backpedaling to try to keep from losing readers.
2
A revolution under a compassionate light which has turned the corner, leaving winter behind us and only the light of spring ahead, to guide us into the promise of that new day so very long in arriving.
For me the jury is still out as to what created this surprise election, and the last thing we should do when facing this autocratic threat is dissolve into a finger pointing, bitterly divisive brawl.
Nonetheless, there are multiple factors to look at that created this election rather than a single cause. The media did underestimate Trump's support. But there was also aggressive suppression of the vote in Democratic leaning communities by Republican regimes.
And Putin is not a non-factor. Expect him to drop hints designed to undermine trust in the integrity of our elections.
The biggest story the legitimate press missed was how right wing hate media radically altered the political culture of what may now be the majority of white Americans, creating a right wing fake America within the borders of real America.
Dust off your copy of SI Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action" and read the chapter on Two-Valued Orientation versus Multi-Valued Orientation. The former describes autocratic political orders while the latter describes free societies.
One of the main reasons you have difficulty communicating with and comprehending white Americans is because they are already living in an autocratic Two-Valued culture, thanks to the intoxicating draw of right wing hate media.
We should revive Hayakawa's field of general semantics. It never rose to the level of science but was an immensely useful empirical tool for understanding and raising the quality of political discourse.
Nonetheless, there are multiple factors to look at that created this election rather than a single cause. The media did underestimate Trump's support. But there was also aggressive suppression of the vote in Democratic leaning communities by Republican regimes.
And Putin is not a non-factor. Expect him to drop hints designed to undermine trust in the integrity of our elections.
The biggest story the legitimate press missed was how right wing hate media radically altered the political culture of what may now be the majority of white Americans, creating a right wing fake America within the borders of real America.
Dust off your copy of SI Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action" and read the chapter on Two-Valued Orientation versus Multi-Valued Orientation. The former describes autocratic political orders while the latter describes free societies.
One of the main reasons you have difficulty communicating with and comprehending white Americans is because they are already living in an autocratic Two-Valued culture, thanks to the intoxicating draw of right wing hate media.
We should revive Hayakawa's field of general semantics. It never rose to the level of science but was an immensely useful empirical tool for understanding and raising the quality of political discourse.
1
I am an avid reader of the Times but it became apparent to me that your coverage of Trump was biased against the man, odious as he was. Once you announced your Editorial Board's endorsement of and reasons why Clinton would be the best President, it was obvious that you were going to paint her in that light. Trump has numerous faults, but holding up his while paying lip service to hers is not a level playing field and substantiates Trump's claim of media bias. Please learn from this and regain the trust a credible newspaper should have, lest you be consumed by the Briebarts of the world.
4
It's easy to blame the media - but Democrats have only themselves to blame for not voting for Hillary. Her campaign must take some blame for messaging or lack of it. And it would be interesting to know if any outside forces influenced the FBI director. Good journalism will be needed in the next four years. Trump will make Joe McCarthy look like a teddy bear. I think concerned citizens should cancel their Twitter accounts as Trump plans to use his bully pulpit against freedom of speech and women. I have never before seen young women afraid for their themselves and their daughters. Republican women should be ashamed of themselves.
1
The DNC are a bunch of neo monarchists who wanted to choose their candidate rather than giving their voters a choice.
Bernie Sanders was the fly in their ointment and they were outraged that he should attempt to challenge their queen who already had sewn up the super delegates and the big money.
Rarely has so much money been expended for so little.
I was outraged at the Clinton insider's comments, as quoted by Frank Bruni, namely that if they'd won he would now be working on Chelsea's first campaign.
This in not a monarchy and Chelsea is an over privileged brat who does not know what it is to have a regular job and stick with it.
No more dynasties. Please Clintons just go away and let someone else have a chance.
Bernie Sanders was the fly in their ointment and they were outraged that he should attempt to challenge their queen who already had sewn up the super delegates and the big money.
Rarely has so much money been expended for so little.
I was outraged at the Clinton insider's comments, as quoted by Frank Bruni, namely that if they'd won he would now be working on Chelsea's first campaign.
This in not a monarchy and Chelsea is an over privileged brat who does not know what it is to have a regular job and stick with it.
No more dynasties. Please Clintons just go away and let someone else have a chance.
1
It's policies that win, and not pandering to hate
1
The New York Times is so deeply obsessed with the grievances of the elite—be it transgender restrooms, the gender "pay gap", racial reparations, and various microaggressions—that they cannot bring themselves to engage with ordinary Americans.
If you don't have an advanced degree, share their left-wing politics, or live in a handful of Super Zips, your worries, troubles, and struggles are non-factors to the mainstream media and its reporters.
Pew Research showing declining faith in media isn't a right-wing conspiracy—people are no longer willing to be lied to in the information age.
The agenda-setting of the Times on social and political issues has never been so blatant, from what I've concluded from my days of browsing dusty microfilm.
Many Trump voters were fueled by sheer disgust at the slander of Bernie Sanders' campaign, led by outlets like the NY Times.
The elites hated Sanders for getting in her way, as we know from Wikileaks, treating him as a nuisance obstacle, even when he was cleaning up in "flyover country" with a populist message rooted in economic justice.
It was nothing short of absurd to see election night poll predictions swing from 90% Clinton to 90% Trump in the span of a couple hours. I'm amazed you kept your foot on the pedal right through the very end.
And don't get me started on the all-out assault on Trump's campaign, for months on end. This non-apology is a spineless attempt to excuse your extensive breach of journalistic duty.
If you don't have an advanced degree, share their left-wing politics, or live in a handful of Super Zips, your worries, troubles, and struggles are non-factors to the mainstream media and its reporters.
Pew Research showing declining faith in media isn't a right-wing conspiracy—people are no longer willing to be lied to in the information age.
The agenda-setting of the Times on social and political issues has never been so blatant, from what I've concluded from my days of browsing dusty microfilm.
Many Trump voters were fueled by sheer disgust at the slander of Bernie Sanders' campaign, led by outlets like the NY Times.
The elites hated Sanders for getting in her way, as we know from Wikileaks, treating him as a nuisance obstacle, even when he was cleaning up in "flyover country" with a populist message rooted in economic justice.
It was nothing short of absurd to see election night poll predictions swing from 90% Clinton to 90% Trump in the span of a couple hours. I'm amazed you kept your foot on the pedal right through the very end.
And don't get me started on the all-out assault on Trump's campaign, for months on end. This non-apology is a spineless attempt to excuse your extensive breach of journalistic duty.
10
Your editorial "impartiality" has become so consistently deformed by the feminist agenda that permeates your newsroom that your aspiration to "[strive] always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences" is laughable. Unfortunately you have over the last five years become as elitist as your detractors and opponents claim, and the feminist bias that dominates your editorial staff is a central if not the central plank of your elitism. You ought to make a study of what percentage of all the pieces that make your front page are feminism-themed. Your institutional blindness contributed to the devastating injury that our republic has just suffered, just as Mrs. Clinton's apparently led her to look askance from certain realities out in the electorate. The senior management and the ownership of the Times needs to reclaim control of its newsroom.
4
The NY Times did not report the campaign fairly and honestly and it's about time you fessed up. You saturated you newspaper with pro-Hillary stories and anti-Trump stories. You heavily weighted your poll reporting away from polls with agood track record and towards dubious polls that polled more democrats than republicans - one week before the election you had Hillary at 96% for winning.
One egregious example is when women came out of the woodwork to accuse Trump of groping them years ago. Every day for a week there were four or five headline stories about these unsupported accusations while the report on damning information from email hacks rated a small column wide headline at the bottom of the page. You apparently, like Hillary, that sexual misconduct was the issue of the day and the emails were no big deal.
Either you were actively supporting Hillary or so deep into the bubble you lost all objectivity. In any event you were as wrong as Hillary about what was important to the voters and your newspaper was useless as a source of news during the election
One egregious example is when women came out of the woodwork to accuse Trump of groping them years ago. Every day for a week there were four or five headline stories about these unsupported accusations while the report on damning information from email hacks rated a small column wide headline at the bottom of the page. You apparently, like Hillary, that sexual misconduct was the issue of the day and the emails were no big deal.
Either you were actively supporting Hillary or so deep into the bubble you lost all objectivity. In any event you were as wrong as Hillary about what was important to the voters and your newspaper was useless as a source of news during the election
4
Your column is not the column we want to read. Your 3rd paragraph statement is boilerplate. Have the courage to admit the source of your failure, and to fix it:
We want from you a letter saying:
"We screwed up. We got it wrong. Our professional sensibilities have been blinded by bias and the rush to seem, in our own minds, intelligent and relevant, while ignoring both facts and true journalism. We will rededicate ourselves to fair, incisive, journalism, detached from the fads of the moment and with a renewed effort to put the events of the day in perspective. We hope that our efforts will better inform and satisfy our readers. And while their loyalty is important to us, we will not let it create bias in our reporting or in the content of our publication.
...because right now, between your Clinton-biased reporting and those idiotic lifestyle columns, this publication is quickly becoming meaningless.
We want from you a letter saying:
"We screwed up. We got it wrong. Our professional sensibilities have been blinded by bias and the rush to seem, in our own minds, intelligent and relevant, while ignoring both facts and true journalism. We will rededicate ourselves to fair, incisive, journalism, detached from the fads of the moment and with a renewed effort to put the events of the day in perspective. We hope that our efforts will better inform and satisfy our readers. And while their loyalty is important to us, we will not let it create bias in our reporting or in the content of our publication.
...because right now, between your Clinton-biased reporting and those idiotic lifestyle columns, this publication is quickly becoming meaningless.
16
I agree, NYT simply served up self-congratulatory platitudes. C'mon, this is an organization that gave Hillary 10 to 1 odds of winning. It is this, together with the similar mentality throughout the mainstream media, that created a context in which a statistically close election became a stunning upset.
I created a FB account 8 months ago to connect with relatives as I worked on the family tree. I've kept FB private and limited to relatives with the exception of a few close friends. I had decided I would abstain from politics since I know well my southern roots. News feed was inundated daily with fake stories about Obama and Hillary. It was garbage, stuff that one would expect to see in tabloid rags, not on a platform such as Facebook.
As much as I love my family, I was shocked to see my college educated relatives fall for these lies, ultimately helping to elect Trump in the battleground states. I asked one of my cousins why she voted for Trump when she said she held her nose to do it. She replied that Hillary must be "lazy" to set up a email server in her home and that Hillary did nothing to save "those" people in Benghazi.
I hoped Hillary would win. I knew that there was a strong chance Trump could win based on what I saw in my own family and on social media. I think that social media is what elected Trump. It was a nasty smear campaign fueled by hate, libel and fear.
I doubt anyone could have predicted the outcome since most were in denial the influence of a historical campaign run by falsehoods on Facebook. We overestimated the common sense of voters, thinking that they would either ignore the rubbish or would do their own research.
Truth is a casualty on social media. There needs to be balance, regulation, standards and accountablity so this doesn't happen again.
As much as I love my family, I was shocked to see my college educated relatives fall for these lies, ultimately helping to elect Trump in the battleground states. I asked one of my cousins why she voted for Trump when she said she held her nose to do it. She replied that Hillary must be "lazy" to set up a email server in her home and that Hillary did nothing to save "those" people in Benghazi.
I hoped Hillary would win. I knew that there was a strong chance Trump could win based on what I saw in my own family and on social media. I think that social media is what elected Trump. It was a nasty smear campaign fueled by hate, libel and fear.
I doubt anyone could have predicted the outcome since most were in denial the influence of a historical campaign run by falsehoods on Facebook. We overestimated the common sense of voters, thinking that they would either ignore the rubbish or would do their own research.
Truth is a casualty on social media. There needs to be balance, regulation, standards and accountablity so this doesn't happen again.
5
I agree with what you have written. Facebook has allowed the worst to emerge and now these hateful foolish people seem to think they have the god-given right to act on those hateful feelings now that 'their side' has won. With Breitbart now in charge of White House Strategy, it will become worse.
Let us hope thoughtful Americans, who care about the future of this country and all Earth's inhabitants, re-emerge in the next election as the winners. The media needs to keep close eyes on this new corrupt administration. I do not have much hope.
Let us hope thoughtful Americans, who care about the future of this country and all Earth's inhabitants, re-emerge in the next election as the winners. The media needs to keep close eyes on this new corrupt administration. I do not have much hope.
1
Clearly the forces which drove this election were too complicated to attribute to a single motivator. However, I was disappointed in the coverage by the New York Times and other media which routinely emphasized Ms. Clinton's alleged "unpopularity" and "lack of trustworthiness" presumably to "counterbalance" criticism of Mr. Trump's demonstrable vulgarity, lack of dignity, laxity with the truth, and disdain for American values such as respect for women and ethic, racial and ethnic minorities. I have to wonder how that emphasis manipulated voters to question Ms. Clinton's character in the final vote, without sound supporting evidence. I have to wonder, too, whether a male candidate would have been subjected to the same standard of "likeability" or "popularity" or "trustworthiness: I did not see Trump's character being subjected to those standards, even when he was purposefully offensive and disingenuous.
11
Could it be you have selective vision? The media was overwhelmingly in favor of HIllary, even despite strong evidence indicating she lied multiple times, put our nation at significant risk through her private server, and largely succeeded in - at least until the lost the election - in tainting and manipulating the reins of government. She did this with the known assistance of Loretta Lynch. And there were indications - until the second investigation was abruptly stopped - from possibly higher up.
I very well may have selective vision. However, I think it is true that the media favored Ms. Clinton. I wonder, however, if you are seeing the Clinton "scandals" through your own selective lenses. Issues have been raised about Ms. Clinton -- and followed by successive, hostile investigations, all of which turned up nothing. Allegations and rumors are only allegations and rumors until proven -- and in the case of criminal allegations, beyond a reasonable doubt. Your speculation as to what she or Ms. Lynch did is meaningless: unless and until the requisite proof is made, the legal fact of her innocence has not been rebutted.
Wow NYT,
I can't help but recall a similar optimism expressed in Charles Foster Kane's "Declaration of Principles!"
I can't help but recall a similar optimism expressed in Charles Foster Kane's "Declaration of Principles!"
I would expect no less of you. My request is this: dig deep and in whatever way possible, help America to recover democracy.
Thank you for your pledge.
Thank you for your pledge.
2
This whole sorry mess might have been avoided if the media, led by the Times, had taken the stand of "no tax returns, no coverage." Instead the Times rode the income stream generated by the election coverage and the nation is now at risk. And by treating the race like a sporting event, with percentage of a likely win, it gave the Clinton team confidence. Frankly, reading your guesses on NFL games reveals how the game analogy works. How much better to have raised the questions that needed to be raised- as you are now doing in the postmortems?
A blank page stating the Times position with the bits that were known about his taxes and the implications in headlines, run every day, would have reminded the voter of the issue and the risks.
Obviously we still face risks from what we don't know. What economic positions will he take that might benefit his businesses? Will he form a construction business to capture infrastructure projects? Will he push to change tax laws to benefit himself and his family? Again a page analyzing Trump's actions in light of what we know about his business dealings is in order.
So - what's next? In an age of media hype, Breitbart distortions and Faux News, is it possible for the Times to play its role of national tribune? Does the layout need to change to better emphasize the key issues and their factual base?
We will have the next four years to learn the new game. It's time to get with it.
A blank page stating the Times position with the bits that were known about his taxes and the implications in headlines, run every day, would have reminded the voter of the issue and the risks.
Obviously we still face risks from what we don't know. What economic positions will he take that might benefit his businesses? Will he form a construction business to capture infrastructure projects? Will he push to change tax laws to benefit himself and his family? Again a page analyzing Trump's actions in light of what we know about his business dealings is in order.
So - what's next? In an age of media hype, Breitbart distortions and Faux News, is it possible for the Times to play its role of national tribune? Does the layout need to change to better emphasize the key issues and their factual base?
We will have the next four years to learn the new game. It's time to get with it.
3
Why has so much coverage been devoted to T*!/p without more solid investigative reporting into his sexual harrassment, tax evasion, contract violations, civil rights violations, bribery, conspiracy, housing discrimination, and likely violations of local, state, federal and international trade and labor laws. This is a man who is proudly amoral and boasts of bending the rules to his interests. Lock HIM up and before January 20.
Also, what kind of collective delusion among educated people has been in play that prevented people from seeing that Hillary's fragile lead in the polls was no lead at all?
Also, what kind of collective delusion among educated people has been in play that prevented people from seeing that Hillary's fragile lead in the polls was no lead at all?
2
A vigorous and free press is needed now more than ever. The Trump Administration has announced plans to bring back illegal torture, cut back on rights, and the inherent conflict of interest of the Trump family continuing to run his businesses could result in wide spread corruption not seen in decades. Stay strong and vigilant New York Times!
2
As a NYTimes subscriber I received an email that said in part, " we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. " I emailed Arty Sultzberger back, "You let Bush drive us to a useless war without a question. You investigate every nuance of Trumps life and completely miss that he is going to be elected, probably spending millions. Now ? Now, you are going to redirect yourself to journalism? You have fundamentally failed in your obligation to the American people."
4
The deliberate and arrogant way in which the NYT thrust aside the people's choice of Senator Sanders is one major reason Trump won. Another was the pathetic pandering and open advice for Clinton, when she continued to show a lackluster performance. I think I will cancel my overpriced subscription today.
8
The New York Times needs to continue it's mission of reporting, analysis, and opinion for people who read. Unlike Donald Trump.
2
In the course of the campaigns, it became clear to me that your coverage was being manipulated by accusations that you are the "liberal media." Paying heed to this kind of criticism is always a mistake. Your reaction to it, showed a lack of conviction and commitment to your mission. It showed the kind of arrogance (" I'm so smart I can fix this") that always seems to adversely affect the rest of us -- think Nader and Bernie and Moore. So, please, as we go forward, instead of engaging in the idea you have significant social engineering skills, do us a favor, stick to your day job.
2
This "apology" suggests the New York Times has learned nothing from its humiliation. You -- and most of the establishment press -- fed Donald Trump the oxygen he needed to keep going. Belatedly, you decided to challenge the vile fiction he was spewing. Too little, too late.
Newsflash: you do not have to repeat garbage just because an important person said it. Once a lie hits the bloodstream of the body politic, it's there forever. Ignore it, interpret it, do whatever you have to do, but don't serve as a megaphone for every lie pumped out by this administration. Use some common sense.
And for God's sake, have your reporters leave the building occasionally, and not just to join the echo chamber that is the Washington press corps. If your business model can't support that, we need a new business model.
Newsflash: you do not have to repeat garbage just because an important person said it. Once a lie hits the bloodstream of the body politic, it's there forever. Ignore it, interpret it, do whatever you have to do, but don't serve as a megaphone for every lie pumped out by this administration. Use some common sense.
And for God's sake, have your reporters leave the building occasionally, and not just to join the echo chamber that is the Washington press corps. If your business model can't support that, we need a new business model.
4
Rather than patting yourselves on the back for turning on a dime, you should be ashamed of your coverage of the election; not for getting wrong your prediction of who would win (although that too strikes me as an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophesy), but because you were consistently one-sided in your coverage for many months. Anything that was the least bit negative about Hillary appeared on an inside page or not at all; and even then, there was a spin to defend her conduct.
Your coverage of Donald Trump, on the other hand, was always negative, constantly attacking all of his positions.
Yes, I get that the Times editors and publishers are liberal, and you are entitled to your opinion on the opinion pages. But to claim that the front page published fair, hard news during this election cycle is simply untrue.
I used to expect a lot more from the Times. Now I just read the Travel section and Book Review, as those are still excellent.
The front page, unfortunately, is just liberal propaganda.
Your coverage of Donald Trump, on the other hand, was always negative, constantly attacking all of his positions.
Yes, I get that the Times editors and publishers are liberal, and you are entitled to your opinion on the opinion pages. But to claim that the front page published fair, hard news during this election cycle is simply untrue.
I used to expect a lot more from the Times. Now I just read the Travel section and Book Review, as those are still excellent.
The front page, unfortunately, is just liberal propaganda.
9
I agree completely. One year ago I read the New York Times as my most trusted news source, today I read (no longer the font page) as an entertaining magazine and disregard the extremely biased coverage of American news.
1
The press exerts power only so far as it can be trusted to be impartial. Thank you for re dedicating yourselves to that noble effort. Yours isn't a paper only for the northeast coast. What you write, edit and published is read and often believed and acted on worldwide. Please don't accept this awesome responsibility lightly.
1
Love the NYT, but less so many of its elitist readers. Just look at the scorn heaped on Maureen Dowd's columns over the years that dare(d) to be critical of Obama-Clinton. And now we have to deal with the mess of a divided nation's countless social and environmental challenges, because guarded and conservative voices were not welcome.
3
As penance a page one anchored NEWS article, running daily for the next four years, reporting on Trump's every action as president would be a good starting point to win back reader's trust.
Adjacent to this daily news column, place another news column reporting on Congressional actions each day.
Simple reporting of the news is what we desire.
An unblemished report on the warts of Trump's administration and Congress's actions, good or bad, would allow us to form our own opinions about Washington's ability to accomplish what they are paid, by us, to do.
Skip the punditry and navel gazing, report the news.
Adjacent to this daily news column, place another news column reporting on Congressional actions each day.
Simple reporting of the news is what we desire.
An unblemished report on the warts of Trump's administration and Congress's actions, good or bad, would allow us to form our own opinions about Washington's ability to accomplish what they are paid, by us, to do.
Skip the punditry and navel gazing, report the news.
8
I'd add to that request daily reporting on the state of global warming, our country's efforts to combat it or lack thereof, and rest of the world's efforts and positions. Without the planet, who will need a newspaper?
2
My major sources of the campaign coverage were NY Times, the Guardian, and Washington Post. It was essential to have the three, as each provided a slightly different angle. But of these, NY Times was by far the most balanced and in-depth in their journalism. I think they were fair to both candidates, equally critical but also providing the nuances in both cases, especially in their lengthy stories. I am sure there are many conservative journals that would inform me fairly, but having lived in the liberal echo chamber, I don't even know where to turn!
Don't pay any attention to the whiners complaining of this and that. Trump is a terrible whiner and he has inspired countless others.
After reading this, I was encouraged to see the Times act swiftly to restore its journalistic integrity. Props for accuracy in reporting that it has been "falsely stated that the Times had issued an apology to readers." Thank you for stating that your hubris-laden excuse for poor journalism did not qualify as an apology to your readers. This is my opinion, which should not be printed under the guise of impartial news.
2
Such a bunch of horseshit. The NY Times was one of the leaders in the liberal blind convincing the liberal blind re Clinton's inevitability as our next President. The Times had no idea, in part because of its natural bias and in part because the so-called science of studying the U.S. electorate is almost complete nonsense. If almost half the country doesn't vote in any given Presidential contest, we have no idea who may or may not show up to vote in a Presidential election. Saying anything else is nonsense.
8
You are missing a far bigger story. Our predictions are based on historical change. Essential we are saying "the future will be like the past"(or not.)
The past, has been arithmetical, additive aka linear change.
Nonlinear growth, which we are seeing now, is different. For example, a LIDAR set, used in self driving cars, cost $86,000.00 last year, this year will be ~ $8,000 and the estimated cost for 2018 is ~$45.00.
Multiple technologies and real world events interact to product non linear change; we can not predict when critical discoveries will be made. Since we can't know in advance what opportunities and dangers new knowledge will present our recourse is close tracking and serial approximation. Tracking is an area where newspapers with trained reporters, should excel. We need to be aware of the tremendous power and danger presented by emergent technolgies like CRISPR/CAS 9 not selling kits on the internet.
We are facing historically unprecedented real world phenomena for which there is ample evidence. We either recognize the exponential change is changing our world in ways we can't predict but can learn to manage - or we will die of stupidity.
T
The past, has been arithmetical, additive aka linear change.
Nonlinear growth, which we are seeing now, is different. For example, a LIDAR set, used in self driving cars, cost $86,000.00 last year, this year will be ~ $8,000 and the estimated cost for 2018 is ~$45.00.
Multiple technologies and real world events interact to product non linear change; we can not predict when critical discoveries will be made. Since we can't know in advance what opportunities and dangers new knowledge will present our recourse is close tracking and serial approximation. Tracking is an area where newspapers with trained reporters, should excel. We need to be aware of the tremendous power and danger presented by emergent technolgies like CRISPR/CAS 9 not selling kits on the internet.
We are facing historically unprecedented real world phenomena for which there is ample evidence. We either recognize the exponential change is changing our world in ways we can't predict but can learn to manage - or we will die of stupidity.
T
So the same people are going to figure out how to do what they haven't figured out how to do in the last 18 months? I don't think so. Sorry Gentlemen. Let's start the fairness and straight talk with discussing how missed it all. Every bit of it. Backed the wrong horse so obviously and inexpertly that your credibility is shattered. And NOW you've supposedly figured it out? Not buying it.
4
I refuse to join the public pilloring of the Times. One simple fact remains: this was the strangest election of my lifetime: Russian cyberattacks, WikiLeaks, FBI Director's breach of protocol, threats to jail a political opponent, etc.
In particular, the devastating effect of FBI Director James Comey's letter to Congress, and how cable news chose to report it, can hardly be overstated. It created an unprecedented cloud of legal uncertainty over Clinton's future. Soon after, FBI leaks became a trickle, all of it appearing to legitimize Trump's ever elegant campaign message of "Crooked Hillary."
And all this just as early voting started in 37 states. By the time Clinton was cleared two days before the election, it was too late.
Yet despite strong resistance from strange places, Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote, which by some estimates will exceed two million by December. So, no, I will not join the chorus. The Times wasn't alone in getting this one wrong.
In particular, the devastating effect of FBI Director James Comey's letter to Congress, and how cable news chose to report it, can hardly be overstated. It created an unprecedented cloud of legal uncertainty over Clinton's future. Soon after, FBI leaks became a trickle, all of it appearing to legitimize Trump's ever elegant campaign message of "Crooked Hillary."
And all this just as early voting started in 37 states. By the time Clinton was cleared two days before the election, it was too late.
Yet despite strong resistance from strange places, Hillary Clinton still won the popular vote, which by some estimates will exceed two million by December. So, no, I will not join the chorus. The Times wasn't alone in getting this one wrong.
3
Yes, I hope the Times does a bit of soul-searching about their shabby treatment of Bernie this year, as well as their "go-with-the-flow" treatment of Trump's campaign with "journalistic balance". The Times knew full well we were witnessing the rise of a megalomaniacal demagogue who spouted blatant racism and bigotry while displaying the all the intelligence and aptitude for governing as a your average bar stool blowhard.
But (with the exception of a few genuine outbursts of rage from Messrs. Blow, Krugman and Kristof), the Times mostly fell in line with the journalistic trope of "false equivalency" - instead of taking the lead in warning in the strongest possible terms of the rise of a menace to our Body Politic at least as great as that posed by Joe McCarthy. The Times might well have been in a position to take down Trump just as Edward R. Murrow did to McCarthy. Instead, it chose to provide cover and legitimacy to a dangerous demagogue who applied the Big Lie technique so shamelessly that he made Herr Goebbels look like a rank amateur.
But the Times (based on its daily pie-in-the-sky Upshot polling) assured us that Trump was no real threat. Perhaps that helped the Times rationalize its largely passive stance. Like so many of us, the Times just knew there were not enough morally-bankrupt Americans who would willingly wallow up to their necks in the toxic sewer of Trump's bigotry and ignorance - just to ostensibly "send a message" to Washington.
How wrong we all were.
But (with the exception of a few genuine outbursts of rage from Messrs. Blow, Krugman and Kristof), the Times mostly fell in line with the journalistic trope of "false equivalency" - instead of taking the lead in warning in the strongest possible terms of the rise of a menace to our Body Politic at least as great as that posed by Joe McCarthy. The Times might well have been in a position to take down Trump just as Edward R. Murrow did to McCarthy. Instead, it chose to provide cover and legitimacy to a dangerous demagogue who applied the Big Lie technique so shamelessly that he made Herr Goebbels look like a rank amateur.
But the Times (based on its daily pie-in-the-sky Upshot polling) assured us that Trump was no real threat. Perhaps that helped the Times rationalize its largely passive stance. Like so many of us, the Times just knew there were not enough morally-bankrupt Americans who would willingly wallow up to their necks in the toxic sewer of Trump's bigotry and ignorance - just to ostensibly "send a message" to Washington.
How wrong we all were.
3
Your reportage was unbalanced and unfair in a few respects. First, you slavered endlessly over Clinton's emails, continuing the famous NY Times attitude toward the Clintons. (You doubtless recall the endless NY Times front-page coverage of the Whitewater nothing-burger.) Second, you systematically under-reported and almost denigrated the Bernie Sanders campaign, ignoring as best you could the enthusiastic and enormous crowds he attracted. It seemed in this case that you were determined to push Clinton ahead of Sanders.
5
Perhaps the Times could do a bit of penance by showing the nation that the vast majority of the Trump voters are not anti-marriage equality racists and fascists. But rather those who have not prospered under many recent policies.
The Times could also shine a light on the motives of some of the protesters. Or better yet provide the civics education that our schools neglect so that those protesters and others understand checks and balances, implied powers, and the orderly transfer of power; a hallmark of our Republic so aptly and graciously modeled by our current president.
The Times could also shine a light on the motives of some of the protesters. Or better yet provide the civics education that our schools neglect so that those protesters and others understand checks and balances, implied powers, and the orderly transfer of power; a hallmark of our Republic so aptly and graciously modeled by our current president.
4
Thank you for excellent coverage of the candidates and their surrounding controversies. The fact that The NY Times formally endorsed HRC didn't prevent an exhaustive examination of her problems and those of DT. The growing popular vote in favor of HRC via absentee ballots is evidence that we have a serious problem with a national election that is decided in favor of the minority's vote. The folks in the rust belt states may have forgotten the post-2008 bailout of the auto industry from Obama administration that was highly contested by the Republican congress. Let's see how supportive the new DT administration will be in the next regional issue like the Flint MI water crisis.
I just wish The Times had been more critical when it came to reporting on Donald Trump, especially as the electiion cycle wound down. Trump's handlers, once they'd reeled him in from using that uncivil, raucus style he was so intent on using, his message began to take hold, however that message was a litany of exagerations and lies unlike the electorate had ever seen before. We're use to the political bluster that typically comes during run-ups to the voting cycle, but never have we seen anything like the outright exaggerating and lying like we witnessed from the Trump Campaign, and obviouslky from the likes of Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway. During critical times like these I believe when the electorate turned to the one institution it typically relies on, the Press, they were let down. Not once did The Times ever make an attempt to explain in detail to its readers how Hillary Clinton was "crooked" as Donald Trump had framed her. It was obvious the buyouts The Times has experienced in the past few years had taken hold. The corp of reporters were young, lacking the savy a seasoned reporter brings to the table. And how did the "Who Will Win" get it so wrong? I read Nate Cohn's explanatioin but believe that too fell as short as the preductiuoins he made. Like so many readers, I am very disappointed in The Times coverage of this past election. Yes, there was plenty of coverage, but generally, The Times seems to have brought spatulas to a knife fight.
1
I think the Times did a good job reporting on the election contrary to some of the comments here. Yes there were more articles on Trump however this was because of his outrageous actions and words. No one who voted for him can say that they were ignorant of Trump's character, backround or words. When stuff came out about Hillary i.e. the emails and her statements and actions, the Times had an obligation to print it.
I voted for Hillary. Did I like the fact she was the Democratic candidate? Absolutely not especially because I'm a progressive Democrat. However I knew she was definitely more qualified to run the country as opposed to Trump.
The press had nothing to do with her losing the election. Those who voted for Trump did so because they believed he represented a shake-up in Washington politics. Problem is he's unfit for office and he will set our country back for ages on end. Look at who he is picking for his administration. Secondly these people voted back into Congress the same Republicans who screwed them the last time.
These voters are going to have to live with what they did. They were given the facts. Me I have a clear conscience.
I voted for Hillary. Did I like the fact she was the Democratic candidate? Absolutely not especially because I'm a progressive Democrat. However I knew she was definitely more qualified to run the country as opposed to Trump.
The press had nothing to do with her losing the election. Those who voted for Trump did so because they believed he represented a shake-up in Washington politics. Problem is he's unfit for office and he will set our country back for ages on end. Look at who he is picking for his administration. Secondly these people voted back into Congress the same Republicans who screwed them the last time.
These voters are going to have to live with what they did. They were given the facts. Me I have a clear conscience.
1
"What would we do without The New York Times?" It's a question we've asked ourselves many times - and now, even more so. It's not an overstatement to say your coverage these next four years could spell the difference between truth and tyranny in our poor, divided country.
I have been a devoted Times reader since 1979, and clearly see the trend in your paper, of journalism merging with opinion, perhaps the impact of social media and a younger crop of "journalists" in your newsroom. Or perhaps it is the fact that your news budget has shrunk dramatically in the past decade since the dawning of the internet and you are scrambling to stay afloat. Whatever the case, please build a "big wall" between the opinion pages and journalism pages, and I'll keep reading.