It's been almost 2 years since this article was published, and nothing has changed.
What about all the claims in The NYTs that Trump lied or is a racist or is anti-LGBTQ... and so forth?
Hide from criticism? Not us. We'll just fire her.
.
.
Election coverage in NYT was hideous. That's not because the reporting staff lacked talent; but obvious research was not done. Just as one example, a national candidate used a NYS-chartered not-for-profit corp to raise and distribute money, as a charity would. The NFP had not registered with the NYS Attorney General as a charity; nor did the NFP - in any year - file the tax documents that are required of charities.
That information was all accessible from government offices within 5 miles of NYT Headquarters. But the Washington Post reported it first.
On the other hand, the Times ALWAYS kept readers informed of how reporters were treated. No candidate on the press plane? Reporters restricted to an observation area at rallies? Oh, we have all the facts on that.
Jason Horowitz sunk so low that he criticized Secy Clinton in print for buying gifts for Chelsea's daughter when she could instead have been submitting to barbed interviews.
The following was a stand-alone paragraph in his piece; it got past every part of the editing process:
"Always the grandchild."
Take a look at the Pulitzer Prize 'finalists' the last 2 years. (Finalists are the entrants found by a jury to be worthy of Prize consideration.) NYT has finalists/winners in foreign coverage, photography, cultural commentary. But the political coverage (state & national) is rightly ignored.
.
Election coverage in NYT was hideous. That's not because the reporting staff lacked talent; but obvious research was not done. Just as one example, a national candidate used a NYS-chartered not-for-profit corp to raise and distribute money, as a charity would. The NFP had not registered with the NYS Attorney General as a charity; nor did the NFP - in any year - file the tax documents that are required of charities.
That information was all accessible from government offices within 5 miles of NYT Headquarters. But the Washington Post reported it first.
On the other hand, the Times ALWAYS kept readers informed of how reporters were treated. No candidate on the press plane? Reporters restricted to an observation area at rallies? Oh, we have all the facts on that.
Jason Horowitz sunk so low that he criticized Secy Clinton in print for buying gifts for Chelsea's daughter when she could instead have been submitting to barbed interviews.
The following was a stand-alone paragraph in his piece; it got past every part of the editing process:
"Always the grandchild."
Take a look at the Pulitzer Prize 'finalists' the last 2 years. (Finalists are the entrants found by a jury to be worthy of Prize consideration.) NYT has finalists/winners in foreign coverage, photography, cultural commentary. But the political coverage (state & national) is rightly ignored.
I just took a poll in my neighborhood, and the vast majority claim that 2 2=5.
Since they're a large majority, and they spoke very loudly, and they look very normal, I guess I have no choice but to believe them.
Since they're a large majority, and they spoke very loudly, and they look very normal, I guess I have no choice but to believe them.
Hey, I did cancel my subscription. But I have till the end of the month! So, I'm not gone ye-e-e-et! I'd say, I find NYT too liberal. But I don't mind that so much as the comments. I work hard to make sure mine are factual, double checking everything on Google. I'm a Democrat, but I like to make my own mind up on issues, and I love critical thinking. I liked the book, Freakonomics, for example.
Disappointingly, most of my comments aren't published (not expecting this one to be, but after tomorrow, my days of disappointment are over!) I don't like the Green Check system. The green-check holders may have been good once, but are now prone to personal attacks (ad nausea, 'Trump's racism, sexism and xenophobia weren't a deal breaker for you!')
You can't defend yourself because your comments explaining you don't support Trump aren't published. (and why should you have to explain it? and why can't they read before they attack?)
In short, a two tier system where green check people say whatever lazy, talking-point inundated thing they want, get to attack people, and pay the same subscription price as those who have to take it.
Why should I pay for that?
To end my rant, I think Liz Spayd is great. I agree with the people she quoted in this article.
Disappointingly, most of my comments aren't published (not expecting this one to be, but after tomorrow, my days of disappointment are over!) I don't like the Green Check system. The green-check holders may have been good once, but are now prone to personal attacks (ad nausea, 'Trump's racism, sexism and xenophobia weren't a deal breaker for you!')
You can't defend yourself because your comments explaining you don't support Trump aren't published. (and why should you have to explain it? and why can't they read before they attack?)
In short, a two tier system where green check people say whatever lazy, talking-point inundated thing they want, get to attack people, and pay the same subscription price as those who have to take it.
Why should I pay for that?
To end my rant, I think Liz Spayd is great. I agree with the people she quoted in this article.
1
Everyone still continues to tiptoe around the core of the issue. Let's just get it out there. The writers has a goal and that goal was to get Hillary Clinton elected president. During the Republican primary the NYT ran 10 stories about Trump for every 1 it ran about the other candidates. Why? They wanted Trump to be the nominee because they thought this would guarantee a Clinton win. During the general election it wasn't that the Times was biased for running predominately positive stories about Clinton, it was biased because of the never ending negative stories about Trump. During the last months of the campaign the stories started to sound the same, just repeating the same points over and over and over again.
4
Well, that's a new one. Points for originality! The Times ran 10 stories about Trump for every one it ran on the other candidates because it wanted one of the other candidates to win! A truly diabolical plan! Alrighty then.
I just cancelled my NY Times subscription after almost 15 years. I am shocked at how one-sided the pre-election reporting was, but I hung on,hoping for more balance post-election. I don't see a change, so I'm making a change: bye bye NY Times. We had a long relationship. It was good, until it wasn't.
7
Cindy and her friends don't get it. No one thinks everyone who voted GOP is a racist, Islamophobe, homophobe. Everyone thinks the people who voted GOP didn't care that their candidate was pandering to those who were and doing everything he could to stir them up. Go ahead and cancel your NYT subscription and your holiday trip to a coastal elite. You want to be sure to be home to vote in favor of the next homophobic law your state passes. Cindy, buy a mirror and lecture to yourself. Public Editor, stop apologizing to these enablers.
5
Wow, nice to hear a little introspection on what was so obvious to most sentient humans looking for a little objectivity in election coverage -- hoping in vain to find it here at the New York Times. Please pass this along to your journalists, and have them go for remedial training - maybe send it to the schools where they study, in hopes of doing this country a better service in the future.
1
This column still staggers the conscience and beggars belief. A racist, misogynist, lying, hate-stoking campaign has played the New York Times for fools, and Liz Spayd thinks the problem is that the Times didn't flatter the need for middle-aged affluent white women in North Carolina - a state that went out of its way to suppress the black vote - to have their disgusting, racist, crude, woman-despising, obnoxious, ignorant candidate normalized FURTHER? Beyond the endless harping by the Times on Hillary's emails?
And now we have the final insult to our intelligence. Trump has apparently appointed David Petraeus, A MAN WHO PLED GUILTY TO ILLEGALLY LEAKING CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE, to Hillary Clinton's old job of Secretary of State.
YET WE DON'T WANT OUR VIEWS PARROTED BACK AT US. We aren't like your precious North Carolina affluent women who vote for racist misogynists and demand to be told it's okay. WE WANT THE TRUTH REPORTED, PERIOD, and an accurate, proportional, representative picture of reality to emerge from the Times' pages, not some fun-house-mirror version of reality where Trump's 100 scandals must be crammed into the same space given to Hillary's two or three already overplayed ones.
Liz Spayd needs to be fired. This is not personal. She is poison to the Times and its readers. There is a blitzkrieg being waged right now against the truth by Trump and his henchmen and -women, and the Times has decided to remain neutral at best, fellow traveler to liars at worst.
And now we have the final insult to our intelligence. Trump has apparently appointed David Petraeus, A MAN WHO PLED GUILTY TO ILLEGALLY LEAKING CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE, to Hillary Clinton's old job of Secretary of State.
YET WE DON'T WANT OUR VIEWS PARROTED BACK AT US. We aren't like your precious North Carolina affluent women who vote for racist misogynists and demand to be told it's okay. WE WANT THE TRUTH REPORTED, PERIOD, and an accurate, proportional, representative picture of reality to emerge from the Times' pages, not some fun-house-mirror version of reality where Trump's 100 scandals must be crammed into the same space given to Hillary's two or three already overplayed ones.
Liz Spayd needs to be fired. This is not personal. She is poison to the Times and its readers. There is a blitzkrieg being waged right now against the truth by Trump and his henchmen and -women, and the Times has decided to remain neutral at best, fellow traveler to liars at worst.
7
I completely agree.
2
The news landscape has changed:
1. We have elected officials Ryan and McConnell asking us to support an unqualified man -FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY against the best interests of our shared country.
2. How does anyone campaign against a man who will say, do, and deny anything to win?
The insider Gringrich explained it all when discussing the Mexican wall, probably won't happen but "It was a great campaign device."
3. For the first time, we need legal protection from our President for using the office for his own monetary gain.
4. Trump may have been elected, but Pence is already taking on the day-to-day duties while Trump tends to making money from the election. (Is Trump wealthy or has he just not paid back his loans to German and Chinese banks?)
How do you give news to a population when one candidate deliberately hides his own agenda while telling people what they want to hear? In retrospect, NOT giving his tax returns was brilliant. It set up a pattern he intends to follow in office and denies us the information we need to tell truth from falsehood.
1. We have elected officials Ryan and McConnell asking us to support an unqualified man -FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY against the best interests of our shared country.
2. How does anyone campaign against a man who will say, do, and deny anything to win?
The insider Gringrich explained it all when discussing the Mexican wall, probably won't happen but "It was a great campaign device."
3. For the first time, we need legal protection from our President for using the office for his own monetary gain.
4. Trump may have been elected, but Pence is already taking on the day-to-day duties while Trump tends to making money from the election. (Is Trump wealthy or has he just not paid back his loans to German and Chinese banks?)
How do you give news to a population when one candidate deliberately hides his own agenda while telling people what they want to hear? In retrospect, NOT giving his tax returns was brilliant. It set up a pattern he intends to follow in office and denies us the information we need to tell truth from falsehood.
4
And the ridiculously biased and slanted news coverage continues! It is clear that the NY Times has learned nothing. On the news pages, the coverage is ridiculously biased. On the opinion pages, the so called "deplorables" are lectured to in a condescending manner. The likes of Paul Krugman make me want to run to a voting booth and vote for a republican candidate no matter who that might be.
You would think that the NY Time would realize after this coverage debacle that people are looking for journalism and NOT an echo chamber?
Instead, we will get 4 years of news telling us that our racist country has been taken over by white nationalists and that President Trump =Adolf Hitler.
You would think that the NY Time would realize after this coverage debacle that people are looking for journalism and NOT an echo chamber?
Instead, we will get 4 years of news telling us that our racist country has been taken over by white nationalists and that President Trump =Adolf Hitler.
6
Perhaps on social issues the NTY is "liberal" - for the rest, decidedly establishment conservative. There was a definite bias towards Hillary in your reporting (beginning with the primaries when you ignored Sanders), and of course, Hillary is quintessentially of the establishment.
3
If the NY Times was biased, so was every single major newspaper in the USA.
This year, newspapers all over the country -- including some of the most conservative newspapers in red states -- that had NEVER endorsed a Democrat in the past for the first time endorsed one. President-elect Trump was that bad.
And yet public editor Liz Spayd listens to 10 white women who voted for the man who spent the last 5 years telling racists that President Obama was born in Kenya and not an American born citizen. Because those 10 white women told Ms. Spayd that they didn't care about his racism, but just liked the man!
Truly, Liz Spayd has no business being at the NY Times that she judges so harshly bacause they were so kind of Hillary Clinton. She obviously believes that Fox News viewers are better judges than NY Times subscribers and she should go where her views will fit in. Would Ms. Spayd have cheered on the NY Times in the 1930s when they reported that Hitler wasn't nearly as bad as people thought? Because some white Christian German women told her that it was true?
This year, newspapers all over the country -- including some of the most conservative newspapers in red states -- that had NEVER endorsed a Democrat in the past for the first time endorsed one. President-elect Trump was that bad.
And yet public editor Liz Spayd listens to 10 white women who voted for the man who spent the last 5 years telling racists that President Obama was born in Kenya and not an American born citizen. Because those 10 white women told Ms. Spayd that they didn't care about his racism, but just liked the man!
Truly, Liz Spayd has no business being at the NY Times that she judges so harshly bacause they were so kind of Hillary Clinton. She obviously believes that Fox News viewers are better judges than NY Times subscribers and she should go where her views will fit in. Would Ms. Spayd have cheered on the NY Times in the 1930s when they reported that Hitler wasn't nearly as bad as people thought? Because some white Christian German women told her that it was true?
3
sometimes ya just gotta be from Brooklyn.
Ocean Parkway and Ave M. 1948.
we aren't apt to pull our punches.
Ocean Parkway and Ave M. 1948.
we aren't apt to pull our punches.
In terms of the election and post-election coverage, the most predictable and disappointing articles written by the Times reporters, are those found among the columnists in your Opinion Section. Each weiter seems determined to outdo the others in their pro-Hillary and pro-Democratic Party support or similarly in their over arching anti-Trump stand. With the weak exception of the David Brooks opinion columns, the rest provide boringly predictable and similar views/opinions. Therefore, by way of a brief suggestion, the editors should consider either hiring some new blood, or firing all of the current columnists with the exception of just one, - and it does not matter which one - since reading one is pretty much the same as reading all. This way the readers will be less annoyed and less bored by the disappointing dialogue of these highly paid opinion makers. Alternatively, hiring a few people who are not wedded to the existing Times political orthodoxy, might actually help to broaden the paper's subscription base.
5
Given that every single major conservative newspaper in the US endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, I guess none meet your very low standards of needing to give a man who spent 5 years claiming that President Obama was lying about his birth certificate the respect that Tom from Queens demands tha he be given. After all, what's a few lies when the ku klux klan endorses you? Let's fire everyone who criticizes the man who lied for 5 years about the US President to make his ku klux klan fans happy because it's important that every newspaper offer praise to racists.
2
Its sad that a a newspaper who's motto is "all the news thats fit to print" found itself playing down to the level of cable news. When the NYT prioritizes editorializing over journalism their ethical standards are called into question. No half hearted apology to the readers is either helpful or required and I personally found it lacking in sincerity. What IS necessary is an end to opinion pieces disguised as straight news. I have been a loyal reader for over 30 years and would say the last 18 months has been an absolute failure with respect to domestic political reporting. And get the editorial section off the front page and back where it belongs like it is in the print edition. That drool belongs in the Op-Ed section not the websites so called front page!
8
Post election, I'm becoming more aware of a split, ideologically, between between urban and non-urban dwellers. The NYT and other major newspapers are all located in metropolitan areas and probably employee people from (or close to) those areas. It strikes me that this can not help but influence the viewpoint of the coverage. I see this as natrual, not deliberate. The question is how to address it?
3
Bezos broke broke the best stories with a small fraction of NYT resources. WaPo deserves to be read first now. Like so many disallusioned NYT readers I feel that you let us down. You won't be trusted again when you blow the biggest opportunity in history to defend democracy.
8
I am so disappointed in this piece. The entire fourth estate failed to hold Trump and his minions to any kind of accountability from day one of his campaign. Now you want to be even more solicitous? What an insult and an outrage.
I am considering cancelling my NYT subscription over this pathetic, sycophantic, backpedalling maneuver.
I am considering cancelling my NYT subscription over this pathetic, sycophantic, backpedalling maneuver.
5
Stuff and nonsense. Both the Times and the Post hammered hard, hard, hard against Trump but barely touched Mrs. Clinton. I stopped reading both papers
3
I think the meter was clearly a horrible idea, and needs to be ash-canned. What business is the Times in? Reporting? or being a bookie? Sure it was comforting -- like being told nothing can touch this unsinkable Titanic. Leave the odds-making to people who are better at it, (Lloyds of London, for example) and give us what only the Times can do: what exactly conflicts of interest would a Trump win entail? As best you can decipher, what ARE his business interests? How DID he lose money running casinos? Why not feature all the people he stiffed? And, as another commenter here requested, what would be the entanglements of rolling back EPA, Obamacare, Dodd_Frank, and other regulations?
5
The NYTimes became a Clinton surrogate before Trump was on the scene....with bashing Rubio and his small fishing boat (Kerry's boat Huge).
As a 25-yr subscriber to this paper, I expected liberal but found it distasteful to criticize Trump VOTERS as "less than"....the voters have been called less intelligent, less educated, less enlightened and less invested in their own well-being than You.
While a Sanders supporter, I strongly disagreed that Clinton was the right choice 2016 but the behaviour of the media towards non-believers cost credibility of the 4th estate.
Hopefully the lesson might be to re-invest yourselves in the news and divest yourselves of political "KingMakers".
Lastly, many Trump voters told me "No Bushs, No Clintons". Just a thought.
As a 25-yr subscriber to this paper, I expected liberal but found it distasteful to criticize Trump VOTERS as "less than"....the voters have been called less intelligent, less educated, less enlightened and less invested in their own well-being than You.
While a Sanders supporter, I strongly disagreed that Clinton was the right choice 2016 but the behaviour of the media towards non-believers cost credibility of the 4th estate.
Hopefully the lesson might be to re-invest yourselves in the news and divest yourselves of political "KingMakers".
Lastly, many Trump voters told me "No Bushs, No Clintons". Just a thought.
6
"As a 25-yr subscriber to this paper, I expected liberal but found it distasteful to criticize Trump VOTERS as "less than"....the voters have been called less intelligent, less educated, less enlightened and less invested in their own well-being than You."
WOW! Spot on. Can you imagine the outrage when people who are inherently good, and disagreed with Hillary on POLICY were repeatedly told that they were racist, misogynists who hate gays?
That outrage was reflected in the victories in Mi. WI and PA.
WOW! Spot on. Can you imagine the outrage when people who are inherently good, and disagreed with Hillary on POLICY were repeatedly told that they were racist, misogynists who hate gays?
That outrage was reflected in the victories in Mi. WI and PA.
3
Maybe the million dollar question we want to ask trump supporters is: if you support a misogynist racist for the highest office in the land is it unfair to suspect you of holding similar views?
Or should we just understand that you don't agree with those views but find him acceptable because of some other priorities you feel are more important?
Can you say that, so we can understand?
Or should we just understand that you don't agree with those views but find him acceptable because of some other priorities you feel are more important?
Can you say that, so we can understand?
1
The Gray Lady is less than a shadow of the great paper it was once. It has been reduced to a leftist propaganda rag. Transformed from "The Gray Lady" to "The Gray Prostitute," who has prostituted her print space, rather than her body, in exchange for the satisfaction of its liberal editors, writers and staff. It's hit pieces on Trump reduced the Times' credibility to just below that of the National Enquirer. In the process, you may have increased your paid subscriptions in the short term, but you have trivialized the paper, and added to a new media revolution, where millions of Americans have begun circumventing the mainstream media, by seeking their news via social media. With the click of a few keystrokes, the President-elect was able to communicate with his 20 million plus followers on Twitter, on a moments notice. I suspect that the trend will continue, and the influence, and profitability of the Times, will not merely drop, but will slide down a never-ending slope into oblivion.
6
2With the click of a few keystrokes, the president elect was able to communicate with his Twitter followers..." Communicate? If what Trump does on witter is called "communication" even by readers of the New York Times, what is the rest of the world to think of the black hole the United States politics has sunk into ?
2
Sure, millions of people voted for Trump simply because he was the Republican. But that is part of the problem too. They should have exercized a minimal amount of serious discrimination. It does not take much to see that Trump is an ignorant lout, a clown and a scam artist who is monumentally unfit to hold any high public office -- whether of not he's a racist,sexist or nativist. Many of my conservative friends and relatives did realize this and voted against him. In a year, the Carolina ladies will wish they had, too.
6
The Times was not unique but it was a leader in eliminating the line between legitimate journalism and the crazy, leftist websites. This will be very difficult for the Times to remedy. You were tested and came up wanting.
4
Thank you, Liz Spayd, for your refreshing take on things. Because of your work, I just subscribed to the NYT this morning, for the first time ever. Your honest approach, and bravery, (in offering neutral views, which probably do not earn you many points with the Editorial staff), are truly appreciated. Yes, I see a lot of ranting by unabashedly biased readers, who are offended that you are attempting to right the ship, by seeking to rebalance a long-term and increasing slant to the left. Because they embody the new Left, the shrill and intense shrieking and shouting-down of anyone who holds a differing view than they, I pray that your management stays the course with you, realizing that the long-term benefits will be manifold. I predict vastly increased readership, a more tempered approach in Op-Ed pieces, and a better result in educating the public of news, national and world affairs, a more steady and less antagonistic attitude amongst we the people.
Thank you again for bringing a voice of reason to the once-great, and soon to be greater institution of the New York Times.
I look forward to starting my day by reading your work, and that of your team mates. Hoping they show you some well-deserved tolerance. Happy Thanksgiving to all, we still live in the greatest country on the planet.
Thank you again for bringing a voice of reason to the once-great, and soon to be greater institution of the New York Times.
I look forward to starting my day by reading your work, and that of your team mates. Hoping they show you some well-deserved tolerance. Happy Thanksgiving to all, we still live in the greatest country on the planet.
3
On what planet are you Public Editor? Yes, there is a distinction amongst his supporters and their behaviours: first, the mob, second the angry 'disrespected' voter alienated by the politics of non-participation practiced by Republicans for whom DT is an alternative, and lastly the silent bigots, the white folks on the run.
Sorry, Cindy honey, I'm an old white Southern lady who cut her eye teeth on Southern demagoguery and I know a bullying bigot when I see one. And you all in Charlotte in your nice white suburbs with your fine jobs and shiny degrees made a bad choice: you bought a pig in a poke. So whine on about the NYT and how ya'll aren't like those nasty mobs that erupted when he appeared, but you share the same crooked little hearts as we all do because we are the people. And Public Editor, start thinking and stop reacting.
Sorry, Cindy honey, I'm an old white Southern lady who cut her eye teeth on Southern demagoguery and I know a bullying bigot when I see one. And you all in Charlotte in your nice white suburbs with your fine jobs and shiny degrees made a bad choice: you bought a pig in a poke. So whine on about the NYT and how ya'll aren't like those nasty mobs that erupted when he appeared, but you share the same crooked little hearts as we all do because we are the people. And Public Editor, start thinking and stop reacting.
22
Despite all the commenter haters and my own deep distress at the Times way of covering the election, I found Spayd's column intelligent and even handed.
8
I wrote repeatedly throughout the campaign to say that, despite the fact that I was not a Trump supporter, I thought the campaign (and likely outcome) was not being reported fairly. The NYT "shined me on." I was told that I was heard, and that my concerns were being taken seriously and passed along to the relevant editors, etc., etc., But nothing changed. We now see what these assurances meant!
Can the Times change? Can a tiger change its stripes? Let's all hope so, for the well-being of the country we share.
Can the Times change? Can a tiger change its stripes? Let's all hope so, for the well-being of the country we share.
12
The NYT, as did most of MSM, push Trump to the top of the Republican heap during the primary season by offering him limitless coverage.
The NYT, as did an almost equal percentage of other outlets joined in the coronation of Clinton as the Dem candidate.
The Times gave her a glowing endorsement in January, citing among other attributes her foreign policy experience. The following month they published an in-depth article over three days citing her unrelenting push for the overthrow of Qaddafi. They has previously reported on her support for the overthrow of Assad. Yet they claimed that Sanders, who opposed both moves, as well as Bush’s invasion of Iraq, did not have the level of depth that Clinton had. The foreign policy experience as SOS which the NYT praised so highly was a rerun of Bush’s misadventures - interference in foreign affairs where we had no business, and even less understanding of the consequences of failure. Nevertheless the NYT followed the MSM pack at a time when polling showed Sanders with a 7 point higher margin against Trump than that of Clinton, disregarding all her weaknesses.
Not only did the Times coverage fail. Their editorial judgement failed!
The NYT, as did an almost equal percentage of other outlets joined in the coronation of Clinton as the Dem candidate.
The Times gave her a glowing endorsement in January, citing among other attributes her foreign policy experience. The following month they published an in-depth article over three days citing her unrelenting push for the overthrow of Qaddafi. They has previously reported on her support for the overthrow of Assad. Yet they claimed that Sanders, who opposed both moves, as well as Bush’s invasion of Iraq, did not have the level of depth that Clinton had. The foreign policy experience as SOS which the NYT praised so highly was a rerun of Bush’s misadventures - interference in foreign affairs where we had no business, and even less understanding of the consequences of failure. Nevertheless the NYT followed the MSM pack at a time when polling showed Sanders with a 7 point higher margin against Trump than that of Clinton, disregarding all her weaknesses.
Not only did the Times coverage fail. Their editorial judgement failed!
10
As a reader for decades, I am disappointed in the tepid mea culpa of your Public Editor as to the role of the Times in our recent election.
Your job is not to engage in tweaking the "forecast odometer", in the telling words of Ms. Spayd. Rather it is to report what the candidates have said, and to check the veracity and the context of their words and intentions.
What I see in Ms. Spayd's apology is a lack of any awareness of the actual character of your reporting, and of your abdication of honest, fearless journalism. The Times became hooked by right-wing flacks who daily spun out low-hanging hyperbolic click-bait with no actual content. Splashy headlines, splashy profits.
When confronted with his own lies, Trump himself said, You knew all this stuff about me all along!. Indeed. Why did The Times dismiss his horrors so easily, only to print endless vague rumors about Ms. Clinton, and to normalize his abhorrent behavior?
I'm sure the ladies in Charlotte are fine people. My ire is not at them and I would never attempt to denigrate them for their beliefs. But if Mr. Trump clearly supports, employs, and is promoting in his cabinet, racists, bigots, liars, and traitors, and indeed embodies those characteristics himself, then you should by god say so. Do your work. Tell the truth. Then If then the good people of North Carolina take offense, they cannot blame you for publishing verifiable facts.
I am afraid that my wife and I must cancel our subscription. What a shame.
Your job is not to engage in tweaking the "forecast odometer", in the telling words of Ms. Spayd. Rather it is to report what the candidates have said, and to check the veracity and the context of their words and intentions.
What I see in Ms. Spayd's apology is a lack of any awareness of the actual character of your reporting, and of your abdication of honest, fearless journalism. The Times became hooked by right-wing flacks who daily spun out low-hanging hyperbolic click-bait with no actual content. Splashy headlines, splashy profits.
When confronted with his own lies, Trump himself said, You knew all this stuff about me all along!. Indeed. Why did The Times dismiss his horrors so easily, only to print endless vague rumors about Ms. Clinton, and to normalize his abhorrent behavior?
I'm sure the ladies in Charlotte are fine people. My ire is not at them and I would never attempt to denigrate them for their beliefs. But if Mr. Trump clearly supports, employs, and is promoting in his cabinet, racists, bigots, liars, and traitors, and indeed embodies those characteristics himself, then you should by god say so. Do your work. Tell the truth. Then If then the good people of North Carolina take offense, they cannot blame you for publishing verifiable facts.
I am afraid that my wife and I must cancel our subscription. What a shame.
16
Yea, I too was unimpressed by al the anti-Trump stuff the NYT put out. They were right, but I didn't need to be told in such detail. Also I missed all the other stuff that must have been going on all around the world at the same time. And I think that is still in the process of what's going on.
That said, I'll still depend on the NYT for my daily news. Just. please, give me a wider window on the world than Washington.
That said, I'll still depend on the NYT for my daily news. Just. please, give me a wider window on the world than Washington.
5
Times could seriously take a look at every single one of its Op-Ed regular columnists. It is a tired group that too often, as a whole, is mailing it in.
10
Some, like Maureen Dowd, have already been mailing it in for YEARS. I don't know how much more pointless and unfunny and repetitive her columns can become before the Times FINALLY tells her she's done. There can't be anybody reading her who is finding her exhausted schtick novel or refreshing or insightful.
2
I've tried to write this before but I'm not very expressive, and I've already wasted 30 minutes staring at the screen on this go around. Might as well give it a shot.
I'm 29, and the Times has been a constant part of my since grade school. When money has been tight, which is very often in your 20s, my Sunday home delivery has been prioritized over all other non-essentials. When I really couldn't swing it, I would bus over to the nicer part of town to read it at the public library. I still have an acrylic NYTimes paperweight that I stole from a newsstand on Mott St when I was 16. I always have part of the paper on me, and it has been surprisingly effective at getting me a few unexpected dates.
I agree with the general criticisms of the election coverage, but my experience has been more of a muted sadness than anger or frustration. The best I can describe it is that its waking next to a long time partner and realizing that you may not be in love anymore. It seems like an impossible thought, but there it is, front of mind. Over the past 10 years the Times has grown and changed as much as I have, and my best guess is that I'll still be reading the Times a year from now, but for me right now its time for a break. Sincere thanks to NYTimes staff for everything, hope to see you again soon.
I'm 29, and the Times has been a constant part of my since grade school. When money has been tight, which is very often in your 20s, my Sunday home delivery has been prioritized over all other non-essentials. When I really couldn't swing it, I would bus over to the nicer part of town to read it at the public library. I still have an acrylic NYTimes paperweight that I stole from a newsstand on Mott St when I was 16. I always have part of the paper on me, and it has been surprisingly effective at getting me a few unexpected dates.
I agree with the general criticisms of the election coverage, but my experience has been more of a muted sadness than anger or frustration. The best I can describe it is that its waking next to a long time partner and realizing that you may not be in love anymore. It seems like an impossible thought, but there it is, front of mind. Over the past 10 years the Times has grown and changed as much as I have, and my best guess is that I'll still be reading the Times a year from now, but for me right now its time for a break. Sincere thanks to NYTimes staff for everything, hope to see you again soon.
5
My only issue with the NYT coverage of the election season-- but it's a big one-- was its utter lack of attention during early primary season of the robust response to the Sanders campaign. And when you finally sat up & took notice, as noted by a reader in this article, it was only to frame it in terms of what it might mean to your oh-so-clear favorite, Hillary Clinton.
I have absolutely no problem with negative coverage of the Trump campaign, nor of its transition efforts. The former was nearly devoid of policy/ platform, fraught with race- & class- baiting, & loaded w/grandiose promises empty of even the most cursory credibility. The latter is a horror-show littered with weekly selection of WH staff & cabinet from the fringe-right & clouded by unresolved unprecedented conflicts of interest. One needn't have a liberal or even judiciously centrist slant to call out such outrages. Whiny Trump-voting readers feel as pearls cast among the swine? Elections have consequences.
I have absolutely no problem with negative coverage of the Trump campaign, nor of its transition efforts. The former was nearly devoid of policy/ platform, fraught with race- & class- baiting, & loaded w/grandiose promises empty of even the most cursory credibility. The latter is a horror-show littered with weekly selection of WH staff & cabinet from the fringe-right & clouded by unresolved unprecedented conflicts of interest. One needn't have a liberal or even judiciously centrist slant to call out such outrages. Whiny Trump-voting readers feel as pearls cast among the swine? Elections have consequences.
8
I don't want the Times to report without favor. I want it to report in favor of the American people. Where the newspaper really went wrong, in my view, is in not reporting on how we Americans could avoid having either of these two deeply flawed candidates as our two major-party choices. The Times owed it to its readers to pinpoint and give meaningful column inches to candidates who were not sensationalist gasbags or the anointed choice of yesterday's establishment oligarchy. Instead, it belittled Sanders, said little about Kasich, and left independent voters, 39% of our nation's population, wondering who would hear their voices and tell their stories. (The answer: no one.) The Times can help America escape from the chokehold of partisan politics by making it its mission to report on the views, desires and needs of THOSE voters, THAT majority, rather than focusing so narrowly on party favorites -- and it should.
11
Donald Trump, like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and several other candidates, were in for extensive interviews with the Times' Board of Ed. Then Editorial Page Editor Andy Rosenthal told us that for no other reason than "tradition," those interviews were off the record. There is no good reason for this, and it is not the way the WaPo treats such interviews.
The Times could have edified us about what the candidates thought about the issues. Instead, the Times chose a paternalistic approach: we will let you know who is good or not based on our opinions. Letting the reader see the transcripts and decide for him/herself? Not happening at the Times.
This was a yuge failure of the Times coverage, rendered laughably hypocritical when the same Rosenthal, AFTER endorsing Hillary Clinton, wrote an editorial calling for Clinton to release the transcripts of her off the record speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Now Trump has returned, after almost canceling. And the Times' idea of coverage? "A curated twitter moment." No, really. https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/801129547949375489?m=1
Proof that the Times has learned nothing from this entire election cycle.
The Times could have edified us about what the candidates thought about the issues. Instead, the Times chose a paternalistic approach: we will let you know who is good or not based on our opinions. Letting the reader see the transcripts and decide for him/herself? Not happening at the Times.
This was a yuge failure of the Times coverage, rendered laughably hypocritical when the same Rosenthal, AFTER endorsing Hillary Clinton, wrote an editorial calling for Clinton to release the transcripts of her off the record speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Now Trump has returned, after almost canceling. And the Times' idea of coverage? "A curated twitter moment." No, really. https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/801129547949375489?m=1
Proof that the Times has learned nothing from this entire election cycle.
9
The problem with the times' coverage was it's failure to focus on the implications of, for instance, getting rid of the EPA, or going in depth on what a Supreme Court could look like and what it would mean for Constitutional Law in thirty years after a Trump victory.
Instead the Times' focus was all inside baseball stuff, which is great but inadequate. So far as focusing on the extreme member's of the Republican party: that's what happens when one of them is the leader.
Instead the Times' focus was all inside baseball stuff, which is great but inadequate. So far as focusing on the extreme member's of the Republican party: that's what happens when one of them is the leader.
10
Remember when the NY Times wrote a nice piece about Bernie Sanders and then edited it, ultimately turning into a negative piece?
Who is to blame for Trump? Many folks want to say Trump supporters. I beg to differ. It was indeed the exclusivity and ignorance of the DNC, as well some news outlets - most notably the NY Times and Huffington Post.
Who is to blame for Trump? Many folks want to say Trump supporters. I beg to differ. It was indeed the exclusivity and ignorance of the DNC, as well some news outlets - most notably the NY Times and Huffington Post.
7
I'm a Canadian but I've been following the election closely and am a long time digital subscriber. I consider myself to be on the alt-right.
But there's a problem! The alt-right is not a monolith. There are differing opinions, often mutually incompatible (example: hardcore anti-Semites and the Jewish right).
NYT needs to assign people to look into all the different strands. For example, I kept hearing about someone called Richard Spencer and didn't know who he was, and I'd been following some non-traditional right sites for years.
I checked around and he seems to be a true neo-Nazi. NYT is saying that all Trump voters are Richard Spencer supporters. That is definitely not the case. Please do your homework.
But there's a problem! The alt-right is not a monolith. There are differing opinions, often mutually incompatible (example: hardcore anti-Semites and the Jewish right).
NYT needs to assign people to look into all the different strands. For example, I kept hearing about someone called Richard Spencer and didn't know who he was, and I'd been following some non-traditional right sites for years.
I checked around and he seems to be a true neo-Nazi. NYT is saying that all Trump voters are Richard Spencer supporters. That is definitely not the case. Please do your homework.
5
Those subtleties look a lot less interesting from out here in sanity land, I hate to tell you. You are not all Nazis? That's just great, thanks for clarifying. You're all close enough to Nazis for practical purposes. Exactly who's using which secret handshake, not interesting.
1
If this is the position the Public Editor is going to take, the NYTimes has already capitulated and is indeed going for its Leni Riefenstahl moment.
12
I was following the US election from the UK, and every time I typed in Trump, the articles at the top for donald trump were either from this publication or some other biased lefty organisation like the Guardian.
You people think you are intelligent and in influential positions, but all you really did was gave birth to Donald Trump.
You made the natives feel like outsiders in their own country.
You made them victims of an open door policy.
And you pushed the status quo about them being racists & bigots every time they wanted a discussion about what is going on and did not subscribe to your leftist views.
Then you tried to manipulate people into voting for Hilary by a constant barrage of abuse towards trump knowing it was being seen first in google.
YOU ensured Donald Trump won with your sheer arrogance and misrepresentation.
I hope you all realize that when you get together for your little chats in your sad little lefty fraternal clubs.
WE are taking back control. And if you choose to elevate everything we say as do as racist, or unkind, then you will lose even more ground than you already have.
You can't stump the trump. Get into line or he will make your fall into it.
Its your choice.
You people think you are intelligent and in influential positions, but all you really did was gave birth to Donald Trump.
You made the natives feel like outsiders in their own country.
You made them victims of an open door policy.
And you pushed the status quo about them being racists & bigots every time they wanted a discussion about what is going on and did not subscribe to your leftist views.
Then you tried to manipulate people into voting for Hilary by a constant barrage of abuse towards trump knowing it was being seen first in google.
YOU ensured Donald Trump won with your sheer arrogance and misrepresentation.
I hope you all realize that when you get together for your little chats in your sad little lefty fraternal clubs.
WE are taking back control. And if you choose to elevate everything we say as do as racist, or unkind, then you will lose even more ground than you already have.
You can't stump the trump. Get into line or he will make your fall into it.
Its your choice.
2
First off, if you're going to write a mea culpa, write a real apology. Not a strategic attempt to admit you were a little-bit, teensy-weensy wrong.
No. You were completely, beyond the pale, wrong.
And you still are.
You're still writing agenda riddled pieces (today) about the TPP, the evil Russkies and white supremacists (as if all Trump supporters "Sieg Heil").
You write complete hit pieces on Melania Trump -- calling her a Stepford Wife, a mannequin and a "fashion accessory". Never mind that she's multi-lingual, worldly and talks circles around say, Barbara Bush. Remind me what names you called her? Oh that's right, you didn't.
You used the most absurdly unflattering photos of Trump at every turn. And always happy, smiling photos of Clinton.
Your bias was everywhere.
And it still is.
Your stable of journalists is long in the tooth and deeply out of touch. You think that "race relations" and "gender equality" are among the top ten issues confronting Americans. Yes, they're important. No, that's not what this election was about, and it's why team Clinton was shown to the exit.
You colluded with the Clinton campaign. You vetted stories with the DNC and sought political "approval". You provided questions to Clinton before the debates. (Remind me who has been fired for that?)
You dragged your history and your prestige through the gutter and you haven't even begun to apologize yet. This? This is weak sauce.
Step up and do with with a little spine.
No. You were completely, beyond the pale, wrong.
And you still are.
You're still writing agenda riddled pieces (today) about the TPP, the evil Russkies and white supremacists (as if all Trump supporters "Sieg Heil").
You write complete hit pieces on Melania Trump -- calling her a Stepford Wife, a mannequin and a "fashion accessory". Never mind that she's multi-lingual, worldly and talks circles around say, Barbara Bush. Remind me what names you called her? Oh that's right, you didn't.
You used the most absurdly unflattering photos of Trump at every turn. And always happy, smiling photos of Clinton.
Your bias was everywhere.
And it still is.
Your stable of journalists is long in the tooth and deeply out of touch. You think that "race relations" and "gender equality" are among the top ten issues confronting Americans. Yes, they're important. No, that's not what this election was about, and it's why team Clinton was shown to the exit.
You colluded with the Clinton campaign. You vetted stories with the DNC and sought political "approval". You provided questions to Clinton before the debates. (Remind me who has been fired for that?)
You dragged your history and your prestige through the gutter and you haven't even begun to apologize yet. This? This is weak sauce.
Step up and do with with a little spine.
10
"You provided questions to Clinton before the debates."
Please cite a reliable source that claim.
Please cite a reliable source that claim.
5
You have this single point right YLJ. Interesting how you jumped on that immediately. Yes CNN is the guilty party there. Another media outlet that, much like NYT, can easily qualify for the Pravda awards. I do notice that you were not able to refute any of Roven's other statements and rightly so, they are on point. The clear and overt bias of the NYT in this election was on display for all to see and I doubt they will ever recover.
1
Trump supporters should take a closer look at what they have actually voted for before complaining about the NY Times coverage. He is an East Coast billionaire who has been accused of fraud, who helped tank the economy in Atlantic City, who ripped off small business owners, who has not paid his taxes, who has chosen as chief advisor someone the alt-right identifies as a standard bearer, who has a foundation which violated the regulations governing charitable foundations, who has advocated a myriad of policies which would violate the civil liberties of all Americans, and who consistently denies responsibility for any of the above.
It is the job of the NY Times to report on all of these things. If you don't like reading about it, you shouldn't have voted for him. This is the guy you chose.
It is the job of the NY Times to report on all of these things. If you don't like reading about it, you shouldn't have voted for him. This is the guy you chose.
17
I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because of his many negatives, of which you have only scratched the surface. I'm sure some liked his racist comments, fraudulent business activities, or horrific comments about women, but that's not what got him elected.
Please recall, it was either Donald or Hillary.
Please recall, it was either Donald or Hillary.
3
Start calling Nazis Nazis and quit the "alt-right" bull. Stop blaming the election of the whiny fragile white ego and put the blame where it belongs--ELECTION TAMPERING. The Democrats WON the election by 1.7 million votes and the votes are still coming in. STOP COLLABORATING with the white nationalists and grow a spine.
12
Perhaps you need to review our voting system. Highly populated centers don't get to choose....but you can always change that legally. For now, suggest you bone up on why the electoral college was set-up.
1
The Times needs more truly leftist voices, and less of the old-guard center-left crew. Clinton *lost*. The old-guard center-left *lost*. If you want to know why, you have to listen to those outside of the pack of bumbling, slick *losers* that represent the Times' editorial voice, and their "Clinton-o-meter" that was pegged at 93% in the weeks before the election. Look to the 'dirtbag left', Chapo Trap House, Jacobin, and so on...
YES!!! The Times is not far left enough. We need more liberal viewpoints.
LOL.. You can't make this stuff up!
LOL.. You can't make this stuff up!
1
In the run-up to the election, I commented here several times practically begging for this sort of [excellent] ombudsmanship, wondering why on earth podcasts and toaster ovens were under consideration. Better late than never, though--much better. And much appreciated.
1
An apology and guilt-drenched post-mortem -- yet, comprehensive election analyses aren't in yet, are they? Recent journalism castigates the Clinton campaign, and the left in general, for failing a connection to nonsuburban working-class whites, etc. Yet, this demographic has been Republican since the culture wars. Further, many seem to suggest that winning arguments existed somewhere in the ether, but the shoddy Clinton campaign didn't deploy them. Nonsense. One error here is the assumption that reason was an electoral force in the first place; consider the President Elect's dismal performance in all three debates alone. A second possible error was the assumption that brown-skinned people would vote contrary to their evangelical pastors, or turn out in droves. They did neither.
1
Name me an election where "reason" was a minor factor, let alone a determining one.
When one gets in the voting booth one votes for ones interests, a rational, but not very reasonable approach to the activity.
Been this way since the invention of elections.
When one gets in the voting booth one votes for ones interests, a rational, but not very reasonable approach to the activity.
Been this way since the invention of elections.
1
I love the NYT for the cultural reporting, for the crazy wedding announcements, the idiotic trend pieces, the peas in guacamole and the Minnesota grape salad. I will always come back for a Snowfall, or for a great slideshow on Hamptons real estate.
But you guys have to take a long hard look at yourselves. This paper needs an editorial vision that weighs the critical importance of what is newsworthy, and places it appropriately. That means NOT putting the $25 million dollar payout by our President-elect on page A20. That means NOT running after made up scandals for clicks. You may want to be all things to all people, in an age of fractured media, but the only way to do that and maintain your integrity is to focus on....the news. Not on placating any one group in order to attract them, when they don't read you anyway. If they did we might not be in this mess!
But you guys have to take a long hard look at yourselves. This paper needs an editorial vision that weighs the critical importance of what is newsworthy, and places it appropriately. That means NOT putting the $25 million dollar payout by our President-elect on page A20. That means NOT running after made up scandals for clicks. You may want to be all things to all people, in an age of fractured media, but the only way to do that and maintain your integrity is to focus on....the news. Not on placating any one group in order to attract them, when they don't read you anyway. If they did we might not be in this mess!
22
The only way to maintain one's integrity, Anthrodiva, is scrupulously to maintain one's integrity.
Sadly the Times's intergrity went missing on the move from Times Square to the new Times building, and it hasn't been seen since.
Sadly the Times's intergrity went missing on the move from Times Square to the new Times building, and it hasn't been seen since.
3
What could be an interesting article is to interview 50 all white women in NC, then interview 50 all black women in NC or SC, then interview 50 all Mexican women in Tx, and finally interview 50 all Muslim women in CA. Next, have each group reflect about all the other groups. Afterwards, you should analyze this collected data and write about how each group did or did not respond to the same questions about this presidential election.
By Arthur Sulzberger Jr stating in that infamous email that NYT would "rededicate" themselves to fundamental mission of NYT journalism displayed an admission that it has not been doing this for past 2 years (which we readers have been saying but dismissed by the Editor of the NYT Politics. What my above request suggests is that your reporters should be investigating and reporting the news, not creating news nor offering opinions based on reporters' biases.
Finally, for all the hand wringing in this article, fact is still that Hillary Clinton, with votes still be counted, has won nearly 2 million more votes - more than any other president except Pres. Obama. That alone indicates she had reached the majority of American voters.
By Arthur Sulzberger Jr stating in that infamous email that NYT would "rededicate" themselves to fundamental mission of NYT journalism displayed an admission that it has not been doing this for past 2 years (which we readers have been saying but dismissed by the Editor of the NYT Politics. What my above request suggests is that your reporters should be investigating and reporting the news, not creating news nor offering opinions based on reporters' biases.
Finally, for all the hand wringing in this article, fact is still that Hillary Clinton, with votes still be counted, has won nearly 2 million more votes - more than any other president except Pres. Obama. That alone indicates she had reached the majority of American voters.
15
MA, I love your suggestion about the interviews, but I would not restrict it to women. I would like to hear from 50 men from the demographic groups you picked as well.
Maybe the NYT's, WaPo and The Nation should have done this before the election?
Right now, I would appreciate an article on how the electoral college works, what it's responsibilities are, the history of why it was formed, and who the heck is on it. And... can they decide to elect the popular vote winner, given the performance of dt so far, is that their Constitutional duty? . Has that ever been done?
I have never seen any article naming the electors or their party affiliations.
Maybe the NYT's, WaPo and The Nation should have done this before the election?
Right now, I would appreciate an article on how the electoral college works, what it's responsibilities are, the history of why it was formed, and who the heck is on it. And... can they decide to elect the popular vote winner, given the performance of dt so far, is that their Constitutional duty? . Has that ever been done?
I have never seen any article naming the electors or their party affiliations.
2
Electoral College? Read the Federalist Papers. They give you the reasons for a lot of things that are bound up in our federal government. The Electoral College was part of our original constitution that was crafted and adopted in the late 18th Century. It's been around for a long, long time.
Put simply, We are a republic with representation based on democratic principles. And, being a republic the role of the states remain key in our our form of democracy is run. Without the representation of "the states" in the process, we would become a full democracy and subject to the whims...and tyranny...of the majority.
Even today, the Several States play a huge part in the governance of our country, and the State of Nebraska surely has very different concerns than, say New York or California. Are their concerns to be silenced for the sake of your view of "fair"?
Many people in revolutionary France literally lost their heads for disagreeing with the will of the majority.
I doubt seriously that you would enjoy being the odd-man out in such a system.
Put simply, We are a republic with representation based on democratic principles. And, being a republic the role of the states remain key in our our form of democracy is run. Without the representation of "the states" in the process, we would become a full democracy and subject to the whims...and tyranny...of the majority.
Even today, the Several States play a huge part in the governance of our country, and the State of Nebraska surely has very different concerns than, say New York or California. Are their concerns to be silenced for the sake of your view of "fair"?
Many people in revolutionary France literally lost their heads for disagreeing with the will of the majority.
I doubt seriously that you would enjoy being the odd-man out in such a system.
3
Another thing: What is the Public Editor column doing on page SR9 of the print edition and who knows where online?
In this era of online news, and the obvious interest and demand by readers to be interactive and preferably to be heard, the Public Editor is the only person on your staff that we can know is paying any attention at all to what we say. In every other column inviting comments (which is already too limited a number), all we do is interactive with each other, which is something, but the one place a staffer will hear us is here.
So, if you care at all about your interactive voice online, why isn't the Public Editor column ALWAYS an above- the-fold, top-left column? where it will actually be seen, by every reader and immediately??
I'm sure the reason this column has only 715 comments after being published 3 days ago is because few people know it's even been published - I only discovered it today, linked from another source altogether. ct
Show you actually value your interaction with your public.
In this era of online news, and the obvious interest and demand by readers to be interactive and preferably to be heard, the Public Editor is the only person on your staff that we can know is paying any attention at all to what we say. In every other column inviting comments (which is already too limited a number), all we do is interactive with each other, which is something, but the one place a staffer will hear us is here.
So, if you care at all about your interactive voice online, why isn't the Public Editor column ALWAYS an above- the-fold, top-left column? where it will actually be seen, by every reader and immediately??
I'm sure the reason this column has only 715 comments after being published 3 days ago is because few people know it's even been published - I only discovered it today, linked from another source altogether. ct
Show you actually value your interaction with your public.
11
I have the Public Editor's article listing bookmarked in my browser.
Try it. It works.
Try it. It works.
"a group of 10 friends...all women, all in their 50s, all white...college educated with successful careers...voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim."
Well, cry me a river. Donald Trump based his entire campaign on energizing his base with insults, exhortations to violence, and railing against minority scapegoats. If he did hit on one or two truths - e.g. that we actually have sold our working people down the river - he more than made up for it with flagrant displays of unaccountably nasty and dangerous behavior. Every day since the election we see news items that might have come from 1930s Germany, or 1950s Dixie.
I don't think there's anything to understand about these people, they made their choice, they voted for an amoral pussy-grabbing tycoon who is laughing his way to the bank - and world domination - as these poor misunderstood Trump voters whine that strangely enough everyone thinks they voted for the things their candidate promised to do.
Well, cry me a river. Donald Trump based his entire campaign on energizing his base with insults, exhortations to violence, and railing against minority scapegoats. If he did hit on one or two truths - e.g. that we actually have sold our working people down the river - he more than made up for it with flagrant displays of unaccountably nasty and dangerous behavior. Every day since the election we see news items that might have come from 1930s Germany, or 1950s Dixie.
I don't think there's anything to understand about these people, they made their choice, they voted for an amoral pussy-grabbing tycoon who is laughing his way to the bank - and world domination - as these poor misunderstood Trump voters whine that strangely enough everyone thinks they voted for the things their candidate promised to do.
12
Ms. Spayd, I find this disingenuous. People were worried by Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric, and concerned that people who supported him were, at worst, also racist, and at best, simply didn’t care about racism. And behold! Mr. Trump begins his appointments with white supremacists and white nationalists. Give him a chance? Give his supporters a chance? What will be enough evidence for you that people of colour have a right to be concerned? Must we actually wait for the apartheid-type laws to be implemented?
Maybe the coverage could have been better. But don’t close your eyes to what the candidate proposed, and what the president-elect has begun.
Happy to be Canadian, having cancelled my planned US vacation,
Emma
Maybe the coverage could have been better. But don’t close your eyes to what the candidate proposed, and what the president-elect has begun.
Happy to be Canadian, having cancelled my planned US vacation,
Emma
11
I never saw a single story anywhere in the media address what struck me as a lesson I recall the MSM claiming it had learned back in 1984 from a Reagan campaign tactic. A post-hoc analysis was made that year of how ads and reports critiquing Reagan had had the opposite of their intended effect - while voiceovers would deride Reagan for his policies, the visuals that were chosen showed Reagan smiling and upbeat. The lesson supposedly drawn by the media was: People pay more attention to images than to words; visuals scan override substance, making it unheard or soon forgotten.
And yet what happened in this campaign?
Trump was far wilier than you; he exploited that Reagan campaign lesson that you had utterly forgotten, just as you forget all the lessons you collectively claim to have learned - which implies a deep underlying insult to the electorate's own memory as well as intelligence and our right to getting the whole story, the fullest set of facts and contexts - it's what democracy demands of the MSM, and where it fails us with increasing acceleration. You trained your headlines and your cameras on Trump above all others in this race, and he won the "Reagan Effect" - image over substance, visuals over words - each time you conveyed the subliminal and not-so-subliminal message that Trump was the one who mattered most to you. You were deifying him.
Shame on all your subversions of the democracy-sustaining focus on substance that being The Fourth Estate demands of you. ct
And yet what happened in this campaign?
Trump was far wilier than you; he exploited that Reagan campaign lesson that you had utterly forgotten, just as you forget all the lessons you collectively claim to have learned - which implies a deep underlying insult to the electorate's own memory as well as intelligence and our right to getting the whole story, the fullest set of facts and contexts - it's what democracy demands of the MSM, and where it fails us with increasing acceleration. You trained your headlines and your cameras on Trump above all others in this race, and he won the "Reagan Effect" - image over substance, visuals over words - each time you conveyed the subliminal and not-so-subliminal message that Trump was the one who mattered most to you. You were deifying him.
Shame on all your subversions of the democracy-sustaining focus on substance that being The Fourth Estate demands of you. ct
4
This column signals that the NYT is now going to be okay with racism, fascism and misogyny. After a full year of going soft on Trump while blowing up non-existing Clinton scandals, the paper is now willing to turn a blind eye to the deeply felt hatred that animated Trump's campaign and the majority of his followers. It's a declaration of unconditional surrender by a writer who, judging from her own earlier columns, has long abandoned the belief in a free press - just as at least half of Trump supporters admit to not believing that press freedom is worth preserving in the face of an authoritarian leader who wishes to jail his opponents and censor critical media reporting.
Shame on the New York Times. Just don't say you haven't been warned.
Shame on the New York Times. Just don't say you haven't been warned.
8
The NY Times has be okay with their brand of racism and fascism, and bigotry for a long long time.
And as for the misuse of women? One needs only look at the glamorous fashion shoots and the fawning coverage of the latest designer collections with their anorexic models to see where they stand.
And as for the misuse of women? One needs only look at the glamorous fashion shoots and the fawning coverage of the latest designer collections with their anorexic models to see where they stand.
1
What is perhaps most appalling to me is that all - and that means an "all" of avalanche proportions - that is only now seeming to stir the MSM, with the NYT being the supposed 'paper of record' pacesetter, as to dire concerns about Trump's endless list of conflicts of interest should have been front page news from the day Trump first announced for the Presidency. There should have been a daily drumbeat. Where WERE you?
Where was the blasting critique that should have been above the fold in the summer of 2015 already about the cable channels turning over mindless surrender of any sort of informative programmed news analysis to instead training their cameras on empty stages and tarmacs in breathless Miltonian "they also serve who only stand and wait" mode (On His Blindness indeed). You all actively or complicitly deified Trump, shamefully, as if he was the worthiest of above-the-fold headlines.
And in the opposite corner, you found every way to minimize Sanders' message and the movement it vigorously was engendering.
As has been true for at least the past two decades, all through the Bush 43 years of shameful NYT complicity that showed just how UNliberal, even anti-liberal, you let your front page be, NYT headline writers choose distorting verbs in particular to disparage even beyond what a given report attests. And then the so-called reports themselves turn to mush with false equivalency that is your ultimate betrayal. ct
Where was the blasting critique that should have been above the fold in the summer of 2015 already about the cable channels turning over mindless surrender of any sort of informative programmed news analysis to instead training their cameras on empty stages and tarmacs in breathless Miltonian "they also serve who only stand and wait" mode (On His Blindness indeed). You all actively or complicitly deified Trump, shamefully, as if he was the worthiest of above-the-fold headlines.
And in the opposite corner, you found every way to minimize Sanders' message and the movement it vigorously was engendering.
As has been true for at least the past two decades, all through the Bush 43 years of shameful NYT complicity that showed just how UNliberal, even anti-liberal, you let your front page be, NYT headline writers choose distorting verbs in particular to disparage even beyond what a given report attests. And then the so-called reports themselves turn to mush with false equivalency that is your ultimate betrayal. ct
3
Yes, by all means: while Trump places white supremacists at the highest level in his circle of advisors, and nominates for US Attorney someone considered too racist for a simple judgeship by Reagan-era GOP senators, let us all fret about the poor misunderstood fraction of Trump voters who may actually not be racist themselves. Personally I will believe them when they openly agree that people like Sessions, Kobach, Flynn and Bannon shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power, and publicly regret their vote. Until then, they're at least enablers.
Meanwhile, the NYT should remember that for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people, and good journalists, to keep gazing at their navels while giving obviously evil people "a chance".
Meanwhile, the NYT should remember that for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people, and good journalists, to keep gazing at their navels while giving obviously evil people "a chance".
8
If people feel the New York Times is a biased media source, then what is better? Fox news? LOL Lately, even The Economist is being accused of being too liberal and biased. BTW, the opinion section of any media is meant to give opinions and is separate from the news section. You can't judge the quality of news solely based on the opinion section. I did not enjoy reading Liz Spayd's editorial. I thought it was biased against the New York Times with little substance or examples to back it up, other than talking to some of her friends in North Carolina. However, the fact that the New York Times published this editorial by Liz Spayd says more good things about the New York Times and actually discredits her claim of bias.
2
Every news outlet is racist. Every person who speaks is racist. Displaying the American flag is racist...
With so many organizations and people being racists, why don't we ease the fury by pointing out who is not?
With so many organizations and people being racists, why don't we ease the fury by pointing out who is not?
4
So these women from North Carolina were offended that anybody would mischaracterize them as racists. Boo-hoo. I wonder if any of their husbands or sons were present at the virtually all-male gathering of white supremacists at the Ronald Reagan Center this past weekend, during which one speaker, Richard Spencer, went on about the natural superiority of Europeans ("People of the Sun" he called them), concluded his remarks by crying out "Hail Trump!" and was greeted by numerous participants extending their arms in an unmistakable Nazi salute. There s every reason to believe that Bannon feels the same way. And he will be sitting at Trump's right hand. And the Times is agonizing about having been too mean to Donald? Give me a break.
6
I am offended by being called a racist when I clearly am not.
The problem is that everyone is turning to playing the "racist" card, whether true or not, in an effort to seize the high ground by emotional blackmail as opposed relevant and valid argument.
Time to stop projecting your racists feelings PW onto people you have never met, and know absolutely nothing about.
The problem is that everyone is turning to playing the "racist" card, whether true or not, in an effort to seize the high ground by emotional blackmail as opposed relevant and valid argument.
Time to stop projecting your racists feelings PW onto people you have never met, and know absolutely nothing about.
3
There's a simple, valid, and effective test for racism. Did you vote for someone who has captured the support of every racist organization in this country? If so, congratulations! You're a racist! Embrace it.
1
yes. the meeting of 200 wacko's in a country of 320 million people needed more coverage! The problem with the NY Times, the left and commenters like this is that the RACIST label is tossed around with such frequency that it has LOST ITS MEANING.
Remember, middle of the road moderate republican candidates McCain and Romney were also branded as RACISTS!
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democrats-racism-default/
Remember, middle of the road moderate republican candidates McCain and Romney were also branded as RACISTS!
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democrats-racism-default/
1
I called to cancel and was talked off the "ledge". I am incredibly disappointed with your coverage as well. I sincerely hope you take the message of the Baquet letter and run with it.
I am not enthusiastic given what I've seen so far, sadly. How long did it take Bill Clinton to form his cabinet again?
I am not enthusiastic given what I've seen so far, sadly. How long did it take Bill Clinton to form his cabinet again?
I am appalled to read your post about the "unfair" coverage of Trump during the campaign. If anything, the Times was biased against Clinton and was giving Trump the benefit of the doubt too many times. Folks said you shouldn't take the extreme supporters as representing Trump?? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Seriously - have you ever seen the KKK come out in parades to celebrate the election of a President?? Have you ever seen that kind of hateful condescension and lies come out of a candidate's mouth? I believe most of Trump's supporters are both delusional and in for a nasty shock. But the Times needs to be reporting fact - and those vile rallies were fact; those KKK supporters were fact; his flip flopping and lying about what was captured on video was fact.
This is not the time to go soft on Trump!!! In fact, now that he has so much power, he must be investigated more thoroughly than ever! Check into his business (and now administrative) dealings with the same vigor as you looked into the Clinton "email scandal" . Reiterate your public duty to NOT give in to "off the record" meetings - you are the fourth estate, and must be separate from those you cover!! Please - I've been relying on NYT for news all my life, and this is the time you must be as clear-eyed and firm in your reports as ever.
(Thanks, Cathy!)
This is not the time to go soft on Trump!!! In fact, now that he has so much power, he must be investigated more thoroughly than ever! Check into his business (and now administrative) dealings with the same vigor as you looked into the Clinton "email scandal" . Reiterate your public duty to NOT give in to "off the record" meetings - you are the fourth estate, and must be separate from those you cover!! Please - I've been relying on NYT for news all my life, and this is the time you must be as clear-eyed and firm in your reports as ever.
(Thanks, Cathy!)
7
Sorry, the facts do not support your thesis, Elizabeth.
The facts are that the NY Times buried Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton right from the start. It was more than obvious to anyone who spent more than fifteen minutes reading the Times each day.
The facts are that the NY Times buried Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton right from the start. It was more than obvious to anyone who spent more than fifteen minutes reading the Times each day.
2
Liz-Why don't YOU get on a plane and go visit Ms Capwell and her friends?
2
Just because someone doesn't think of themselves as a racist or sexist doesn't mean that they aren't. At the very least, they were certainly perfectly fine voting for a racist and sexist, and standing around in his rallies with KKK members on one side and neo-Nazis on the other. Naturally, they don't feel like they're anti-Muslim...but they unquestionably voted for a candidate who was.
6
And just because you think they are, Max, doesn't make it true.
If you are trying to take the intellectual high road, you should not slippy into hypocrisy overdrive to get there.
If you are trying to take the intellectual high road, you should not slippy into hypocrisy overdrive to get there.
2
Overall I have been okay with the NYt's coverage of Trump. In fact, I only wish they had been harsher and fact-checked him more in the primaries and early stages of the election season. He got way too much leeway.
Where the NYT failed me is not taking Bernie Sanders seriously and giving him the same attention as Trump or Clinton. The NYT was unabashedly pro-HRC and it showed. I commented many times that I think Sanders had the better chance of getting elected. It was obvious that the country wanted an "outsider" and now wehave one. Outlets like the NYT are in part to blame. Their bias shone through and it turned people off and now we have four years of a narcissistic egomaniac man-child running the country. Prepare for the worst.
Where the NYT failed me is not taking Bernie Sanders seriously and giving him the same attention as Trump or Clinton. The NYT was unabashedly pro-HRC and it showed. I commented many times that I think Sanders had the better chance of getting elected. It was obvious that the country wanted an "outsider" and now wehave one. Outlets like the NYT are in part to blame. Their bias shone through and it turned people off and now we have four years of a narcissistic egomaniac man-child running the country. Prepare for the worst.
5
Liz, YOU have single-handedly earned my new, first-time ever subscription to the NYT.
I just wanted to let your management know that I sincerely appreciate your superb journalism, your unbiased reporting, (as all REPORTING should be), and your honest and in-touch take on timely and important topics. You are literally the breathe of fresh air that the rest of major U.S. news media has been so lacking. I am confident that millions of Americans agree with this sentiment.
Thank you again, I look forward to starting my days with reading your column.
I just wanted to let your management know that I sincerely appreciate your superb journalism, your unbiased reporting, (as all REPORTING should be), and your honest and in-touch take on timely and important topics. You are literally the breathe of fresh air that the rest of major U.S. news media has been so lacking. I am confident that millions of Americans agree with this sentiment.
Thank you again, I look forward to starting my days with reading your column.
3
I've teetered on the brink of canceling my subscription for weeks now. I recently purchased a subscription to the Wall Street Journal to try to ensure I could balance out different perspectives because I no longer trust the New York Times to help me stay adequately informed.
A lot of people respond with comments like, "Duh, of course the New York Times has a liberal bias." That may be true, but if NYT continues to portray itself as objective in the face of its continued slanted political coverage then it is destined to become as big of a joke as Fox News in its insistence it is "fair and balanced."
Loss of trust is a brutally difficult condition for an institution to recover from and the NYT, outside of this column, has shown little awareness that it's even in this state. I hope there's more soul searching going on behind the scenes than is reflected in the meta-coverage of how the Times reports.
A lot of people respond with comments like, "Duh, of course the New York Times has a liberal bias." That may be true, but if NYT continues to portray itself as objective in the face of its continued slanted political coverage then it is destined to become as big of a joke as Fox News in its insistence it is "fair and balanced."
Loss of trust is a brutally difficult condition for an institution to recover from and the NYT, outside of this column, has shown little awareness that it's even in this state. I hope there's more soul searching going on behind the scenes than is reflected in the meta-coverage of how the Times reports.
4
I think Liz Spayd is being way to easy on The Times. The media is suppose to fulfill a certain role in our society and the entire main stream media propaganda organization like The Washington post and The NY Times were completely grossly inept at fulfilling their obligations to society. If you are going to call yourself a journalist, you need to stick to the facts. You are not suppose to select a narrative that suits you and present everything in a way that supports your narrative. Unforgivable. Anyone who actually reads and has not cancelled their subscription or anyone who recently signed up for a subscription is a gullible zombie who might as well be lobotomized because you are just throwing your money away!
1
The candidate is over the top, so accurate coverage of him will reflect that. You revealed the sinister white supremacist ties Trump has and people decided to vote for him anyway and now they don't like being lumped in with white supremacists? The WORST thing we can do is normalize trump who is bringing white supremacists into his cabinet right now. Why cater to white ladies who feel like they are nice people and so should be able to vote for a racist white nationalist regime without recrimination or rebuke? They are the problem. The basement dwelling KKK members and white nationalists don't exist in numbers to get anyone elected. It is the nice white ladies and gentlemen that got us saddled with this regime.
Trump can't understand why the NYT would publish a story like this - he is that far removed from integrity, truth and honesty. Please don't soften his image for the comfort of some ladies who don't like that he's really dangerous. It doesn't matter that some of the things he says or does maybe don't seem that bad when so many things do.
His demands that you report to his liking are the wishes or demands of a despot.
Trump can't understand why the NYT would publish a story like this - he is that far removed from integrity, truth and honesty. Please don't soften his image for the comfort of some ladies who don't like that he's really dangerous. It doesn't matter that some of the things he says or does maybe don't seem that bad when so many things do.
His demands that you report to his liking are the wishes or demands of a despot.
3
When you put people like Gail Collins, a bigot, and Paul Krugman a man whose profession is supposed to offer rational and sober insight but he rather prefers to speak out like a Communist Party media hack against the evils of freedom it's a problem. Both appear at the top of the website everyday, the digital version of above the fold. Duplicity and dissemble is the NY Times' front page product wrapped in elitist left wing bias.
Still waiting for the NY Times to hold Sheryl Sandberg accountable for her lies in her ~February, 2015 column. No shame. No shame for attaching that treachery to Adam Grant's sterling reputation. No shame for lying about the male half and female half of the human species.
At least there is still excellent quality with people Maureen Dowd, Gretchen Morgenson, and Gina Kolata.
Still waiting for the NY Times to hold Sheryl Sandberg accountable for her lies in her ~February, 2015 column. No shame. No shame for attaching that treachery to Adam Grant's sterling reputation. No shame for lying about the male half and female half of the human species.
At least there is still excellent quality with people Maureen Dowd, Gretchen Morgenson, and Gina Kolata.
1
Liz,
The overall tone of your piece, and the manner in which conservative outlets like Fox are trumpeting it gleefully, is, "The Times was wrong, Trump was right." I'd like you to present a bit of a broader perspective: if Trump voters feel vindicated, how did MILLIONS more people vote for Hillary Clinton, yet they still won the election? I don't feel like the Times was wrong, I feel like the election was stolen. With all due respect to your 10 conservative white women in NC, please take a trip out to California, where I and my friends are wondering how the hell we don't have equal representation in our federal government. As a longtime Times subscriber, that's what I want my paper to investigate, not how you can bring some more conservative voices into your building. Please. Perspective.
The overall tone of your piece, and the manner in which conservative outlets like Fox are trumpeting it gleefully, is, "The Times was wrong, Trump was right." I'd like you to present a bit of a broader perspective: if Trump voters feel vindicated, how did MILLIONS more people vote for Hillary Clinton, yet they still won the election? I don't feel like the Times was wrong, I feel like the election was stolen. With all due respect to your 10 conservative white women in NC, please take a trip out to California, where I and my friends are wondering how the hell we don't have equal representation in our federal government. As a longtime Times subscriber, that's what I want my paper to investigate, not how you can bring some more conservative voices into your building. Please. Perspective.
4
Thank you Liz. This is exactly my sentiment as well. We have the same issue in California where a HUGE part of the state is not represented in Sacramento and the Sacramento Bee publishes pro-Democrat opinion 4-1. I did cancel my subscription years ago because all I wanted was fair and balanced coverage. Give me 3-2 in favor of democrat policies and I would've been able to live with that. Finally, I do agree that major media outlets have ignored people like me, white, college-educated, Gen X, for about 15 years. I'm happy the country has become far more accepting of LGBTQ, less racist and more tolerant (in general). I have NO hate in my heart for any group of people but I sure do feel hate from some of those groups directed at me, even though I've never done anything to deserve it.
4
The NYTimes is pondering if they were too hard on the guy who courts and hires racists, mocks the disabled, debases and abuses women, and casually advocates for war crimes and shredding parts of the constitution as he sees fits? Get real. Your Public Editor is wrong.
Better campaign coverage is needed, but I'm confident
Better campaign coverage is needed, but I'm confident
5
While the Times constantly brays about the 2nd amendment, they are a wonderful example of excess insofar as the 1st Amendment. The Times should be censored for their disgraceful behavior in this election. The only way this could be accomplished is for readers to cease buying papers from this distasteful example of present-day yellow journalism.
Trump suggested second amendment solutions against his political rival and his fans cheered. How is it that the NYT can even begin to suggest that they were too hard on him? I am shocked and dismayed. Is the press now going to normalize neo-Nazism?
7
Yes, please continue to brand Trump and his followers as "neo-nazi's." It was a very effective strategy that prevented Trump from being elected.. oh, wait...
2
Some are neo-Nazis. Sorry, fact.
Criticisms and complaints about the Times' coverage should hopefully point toward a new model of editorial decisions and how front-page and online news is published. News should be a model for informing and educating the public, not for activating emotions by confirming things we already believe. News sites are starting to look more like social media sites, with more representation of what is popular, not what is important.
When I log in to the NYT website, I would like my eyes to first see an investigative story about something that will inform me about relevant and important issues, like climate change, the economy, issues in law enforcement, advancements in science, green technologies, trade models, job models, sociological models, etc.
Readers generally follow the first large-print stories they come across on the front page or the homepage. If that story, or at least the stories placed immediately near the major headline, were an educational or investigative piece, readers are more likely to learn something important and relevant. Knowledge is true power that goes into decision making on all levels. Enough with the sensationalism, it's only driving us further into ignorance and we saw the result of that two weeks ago.
When I log in to the NYT website, I would like my eyes to first see an investigative story about something that will inform me about relevant and important issues, like climate change, the economy, issues in law enforcement, advancements in science, green technologies, trade models, job models, sociological models, etc.
Readers generally follow the first large-print stories they come across on the front page or the homepage. If that story, or at least the stories placed immediately near the major headline, were an educational or investigative piece, readers are more likely to learn something important and relevant. Knowledge is true power that goes into decision making on all levels. Enough with the sensationalism, it's only driving us further into ignorance and we saw the result of that two weeks ago.
1
NO NO NO. Don't you dare start this! Trump is dismantling this nation.
His first enemies were the Republican establishment candidates. They said he could never beat them. He did.
His next enemy was Hilary Clinton. They said he could never beat her. He did.
Now his sights are turned on the press. Don't make the same mistake.
Fight!
His first enemies were the Republican establishment candidates. They said he could never beat them. He did.
His next enemy was Hilary Clinton. They said he could never beat her. He did.
Now his sights are turned on the press. Don't make the same mistake.
Fight!
5
I am a NYT+ subscriber and I will continue to be. This is the first time that I have posted a comment. I by no means agree with everything that the NYT publishes, but I think there is some revisionist history occurring. Donald Trump had several bad moments that were accurately portrayed by the NYT. I have no doubt that some of the response that the NYT received was due to our president-elect tweeting how the "failing" NYT is "unfair" to him. He helped frame this conversation and it seems that he will continue to do so. I just sincerely hope that when we really examine these issues we remember that the loudest voice is not necessarily the most representative. I also hope that we can continue to be critical of our president without being considered "biased." The "findings" of this article make me fearful that we won't.
1
This analysis missed a very important criticism of the campaign coverage. Their was a glaring lack of coverage about important issues, about policies.
There were few details given about what candidates wanted to do to help the country or to address climate change, you know, that thing that could affect the entirety of human civilization on the planet. Instead, the news was awash in scandals and pointless exposure of the candidates' image.
This is a failure of investigative journalism, and it hasn't changed much since election day. Instead of being leaders, the Times is following click-bait trends.
The front page and recommended stories have gone from candidate scandals and horrible things Trump said to possible horrible picks he will have for cabinet positions. The Times needs to be running daily stories with interviews from experts in the fields of science and technology, economics, healthcare, law, and international relations to discuss options and arguments for solving our many problems and moving forward.
There were few details given about what candidates wanted to do to help the country or to address climate change, you know, that thing that could affect the entirety of human civilization on the planet. Instead, the news was awash in scandals and pointless exposure of the candidates' image.
This is a failure of investigative journalism, and it hasn't changed much since election day. Instead of being leaders, the Times is following click-bait trends.
The front page and recommended stories have gone from candidate scandals and horrible things Trump said to possible horrible picks he will have for cabinet positions. The Times needs to be running daily stories with interviews from experts in the fields of science and technology, economics, healthcare, law, and international relations to discuss options and arguments for solving our many problems and moving forward.
7
Yes the NYTimes did a VERY POOR job of covering the campaign - beginning with its LACK of coverage of Bernie Sanders. Frankly, I now subscribe to the NYT purely for the comments and community of other readers. Because you've proven that you're NOT fair or balanced.
2
I was disappointed that your coverage of Bernie Sanders was not in depth enough. If it had been you would have exposed Jane Sanders shenanigans at Burlington College her sketchy use of public funds to pay her retirement fund ie the looting of VEHBFA bond fund.
Bernie s failure to ever really provide his taxes. A real look at his legacy as Burlington Mayor.
While he was mayor the owner of the downtown was the largest tax scoff in the state Sanders shined it on.. etc the 1000% increase in homelessness when he moved to congress and then the senate. A man who has become a multi millionaire with four homes who never held a real job before he became mayor of Burlington . The Pedophile apologist psycho babble in his writings as a 35 year old adult. Or how Bernie denied Burlington a full on Mental Heath hospital, because he was Running against a Republican. He has cost the community of 35k over $20million in higher insurance costs by not moving the mental hospital money that was frittered away. The new location where our Hospital trustees (controlled by his paranoid evil nemesis Millionaires and Billionaires) chose was located across form a Dunkin Donuts where some one could watch people driving into the parking lot and write down their license plate numbers and identify who was using the mental heath hospital. Policy based on this guys insanity
Bernie Sanders paranoia that Billionaires and Millionaires are out to destroy his life and yours is insanity.
Bernie s failure to ever really provide his taxes. A real look at his legacy as Burlington Mayor.
While he was mayor the owner of the downtown was the largest tax scoff in the state Sanders shined it on.. etc the 1000% increase in homelessness when he moved to congress and then the senate. A man who has become a multi millionaire with four homes who never held a real job before he became mayor of Burlington . The Pedophile apologist psycho babble in his writings as a 35 year old adult. Or how Bernie denied Burlington a full on Mental Heath hospital, because he was Running against a Republican. He has cost the community of 35k over $20million in higher insurance costs by not moving the mental hospital money that was frittered away. The new location where our Hospital trustees (controlled by his paranoid evil nemesis Millionaires and Billionaires) chose was located across form a Dunkin Donuts where some one could watch people driving into the parking lot and write down their license plate numbers and identify who was using the mental heath hospital. Policy based on this guys insanity
Bernie Sanders paranoia that Billionaires and Millionaires are out to destroy his life and yours is insanity.
2
"They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim".
I genuinely hope that Ms. Capwell gets the opportunity to be interviewed by the NYT, so that she might enlighten all of us as to how someone can vote for a presidential candidate who openly courted white supremacists, was endorsed by David Duke, and was previously sued and fined by the federal government for discrimination against African Americans, but not in fact BE a racist. Apparently, Ms. Capwell has found a intellectual loophole wherein one can vote for a racist, but that doesn't actually make one a racist.
One has to wonder whether Mr. Trump would have also garnered their votes had he spoken about Jews the same way. Perhaps even more absurd, consider for one moment if Mr. Trump were an African American candidate, would he have also garnered their votes if he had spoken the same way about grabbing the genitals of young white females?
Take a good long look in the mirror ladies.
I genuinely hope that Ms. Capwell gets the opportunity to be interviewed by the NYT, so that she might enlighten all of us as to how someone can vote for a presidential candidate who openly courted white supremacists, was endorsed by David Duke, and was previously sued and fined by the federal government for discrimination against African Americans, but not in fact BE a racist. Apparently, Ms. Capwell has found a intellectual loophole wherein one can vote for a racist, but that doesn't actually make one a racist.
One has to wonder whether Mr. Trump would have also garnered their votes had he spoken about Jews the same way. Perhaps even more absurd, consider for one moment if Mr. Trump were an African American candidate, would he have also garnered their votes if he had spoken the same way about grabbing the genitals of young white females?
Take a good long look in the mirror ladies.
5
Many people voted for Donald Trump since the only alternative (with a realistic shot) was Hillary Clinton.
1
Gee Liz, nothing in your whole column about Clinton's e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation coverage where the NY Times gave right wing hack Peter Schweizer and his book "Clinton Cash" immense credibility. Your attitude is that only Conservative and Republican readers have a legitimate criticism of Times coverage because, apparently, they are embarrassed that they voted for a racist con-man for President. People can say they are not "racist, not homophobic, or anti-Muslim" as much as they want, but the candidate they voted for has just selected a homophobe, racist, anti-Muslim" Senator, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, to be his Attorney General, has just selected homophobe, anti-Muslim, Grifter LTG (ret) Michael Flynn to be his National Security Advisor, or appointed that avatar of the Alt-Right/White Supremacist movement Steve Bannon as the President Elect's counsel. Apparently, Cindy Capwell and her friends voted for Mr. Trump despite those things. I expect they would say they voted for him because he is "a Good Business Man" and will "get things done" and find the other stuff "uncomfortable." And apparently Ms.Spayd does not want the Times to make such readers uncomfortable. She should remember what Mr. Dooley said was one of the purposes of a newspaper, "to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable."
3
I cannot complain enough about the feature The New York Times had on its website before the election called "Who Will Win." This compilation of polls distilled down to a simple percentage mislead voters and surely prompted many to not vote. This up-to-the-minute feature consistently gave Hilary Clinton a 86 percent or higher chance of winning the election. Sure, she may have won the popular vote, but who cares? I spoke to some people in my home state of Pennsylvania who said they weren't going to vote because Hilary was so far ahead in the polls. Boy, were you wrong! And now we're stuck with this ignoramus for the next 4 years in the White House. Thanks!
2
Your coverage of the email situation stands out as some of the worst of all, and I think it's part of the reason she lost.
2
The NYT's initial story was the first domino, in the same way the Whitewater story and the false reporting of WMD in Iraq. that led to Comey's decision that threw the election. They kept fanning the flames with the "shadows and fog" approach until people started ridiculing them. I'm sure that someone is proud of him or herself for this debacle. I wonder what new false narrative they're going to play up? Talk about fake news.
Meeting people halfway when they are in crazy town isn't a good idea. I disagree strongly with the idea that the Times should cater to people who thought a self-professed serial sexual assault predator with a history of discrimination should get the highest office in the land. They aren't the only ones whose subscriptions you should be worrying about.
2
If you pay for the NYT... you should be asking for a refund. The Times has become a Propaganda Paper and not an actual News Reporting Paper. Very disappointing that Americans have to rely on Blog sites and You Tube Reports to get the truth. I really don't see the Times fixing their problems and they will continue to be a mouth piece for a Liberal America and not ALL of America. I guess they didn't see the election results yet!
1
Yeah we needed less email from YOU and more about the horrible rightwing agenda that Trump brings to America. The Times helped Trump in more ways than money can pay for with its anti-Clinton slant.
1
Most of the fault is Donald Trump's. His relentless lying and style featuring theatrics worthy of a professional wrestling match over facts made it extraordinarily difficult to place the realities we are confronting into proper proportion. This will continue to be the challenge for the paper. I expect much of the coverage of the campaigns will be vindicated as the realities of the new administration emerge.
Both Trump and Hillary coverage was terrible. I got tired of hearing about what craziness happened at the last Trump rally. And there was no coverage of Hillary supporters at her rallies (no racism, violence, misogyny at her rallies so I guess they weren't newsworthy) I looked in vain for detailed coverage and comparison of their tax plans, their healthcare proposals, their jobs plan, their views on foreign policy. I expected this information from the Times; instead I got the latest spew from Trump supporters and of course..EMAILS!
2
Trump coverage post-election has moved from facile "he said this, she said that" coverage to a much more biased position that actually filters facts to support hostility to Trump and all his supporters. That can only lessen the Times' credibility among all its readers, regardless of stripe.
2
Liz,
You identified the big story a few weeks ago, Russian interference in the election, and perhaps a lack of in-depth NYT coverage. That's what I would like the public editor to focus on. No more missing the important ones like the drum beat, propaganda, and "tubes" articles for war with Iraq.
So Nate of the NYT didn't get the prediction right. I can roll with that. And 10 people in NC voted for Trump. Please. A foreign attack on an election is the important issue. Stick with it. And no self-flagellation, so unseemly.
Bob
You identified the big story a few weeks ago, Russian interference in the election, and perhaps a lack of in-depth NYT coverage. That's what I would like the public editor to focus on. No more missing the important ones like the drum beat, propaganda, and "tubes" articles for war with Iraq.
So Nate of the NYT didn't get the prediction right. I can roll with that. And 10 people in NC voted for Trump. Please. A foreign attack on an election is the important issue. Stick with it. And no self-flagellation, so unseemly.
Bob
Well, most Americans like to blame the media for whatever perceived problems occurred in the election. The NYT is only one of my sources of information; 538 was always more bullish on Trump and kept pointing out that he could win. The real problem in the election is that people stayed home; people lied to pollsters; and Clinton didn't concentrate on defending her base. All of the media missed these stories. Can you do better? Yes. Will I cancel my subscription? Of course not. Should you continue to report on Trump in as thorough a way as possible? Please do.
Issues continue!
Even now, the distractions threaten to overwhelm the more important topics.
Like, the nice analysis of 122 campaign speeches for campaign promises and what might need Congress. Which of those items were mentioned in the current 100 day policy plan? So, which of those items are most likely, and how?
Also: big policy areas deserve detail - e.g. TAXES: is it true that the Ryan budget plan may voucher-ize future Medicare enrollees? And block grant Fed contributions to Medicaid (thus putting more pressure on states to lessen support to the poor, fragmented as it already is, especially during hard economic times??) That it aims to omit all tax deductions except mortgage interest and charity? So that state, local, city taxes will no longer be deducted from Federal taxable income? So that Blue State taxpayers will see huge Fed tax increases? What about the taxable interest implications for municipal bonds and what that means for states or cities?? A lot of scary rumors out there, do I just need to pay up and hope Bloomberg, of FT, or WSJ have clear coverage?.
These details - and what they might mean for people's lives - on insurance, infrastructure taxes, abortion/any public health policy - are the ingredients in the main meal being cooked up in DC, and we the people desperately need to know what is on the menu. These issues are what people could march about - aiming for action to change the entree, so to speak, rather than the flavor of endless garnishes.
Even now, the distractions threaten to overwhelm the more important topics.
Like, the nice analysis of 122 campaign speeches for campaign promises and what might need Congress. Which of those items were mentioned in the current 100 day policy plan? So, which of those items are most likely, and how?
Also: big policy areas deserve detail - e.g. TAXES: is it true that the Ryan budget plan may voucher-ize future Medicare enrollees? And block grant Fed contributions to Medicaid (thus putting more pressure on states to lessen support to the poor, fragmented as it already is, especially during hard economic times??) That it aims to omit all tax deductions except mortgage interest and charity? So that state, local, city taxes will no longer be deducted from Federal taxable income? So that Blue State taxpayers will see huge Fed tax increases? What about the taxable interest implications for municipal bonds and what that means for states or cities?? A lot of scary rumors out there, do I just need to pay up and hope Bloomberg, of FT, or WSJ have clear coverage?.
These details - and what they might mean for people's lives - on insurance, infrastructure taxes, abortion/any public health policy - are the ingredients in the main meal being cooked up in DC, and we the people desperately need to know what is on the menu. These issues are what people could march about - aiming for action to change the entree, so to speak, rather than the flavor of endless garnishes.
When polled some 73% of people felt the press was biased against one or the other candidates. That's shocking! That's 27% of the population that can't tell how unbelievably biased the media has become. Their leading questions, misleading titles, one sided assumptions backed up by cherry picked pundits puts old time communist Pravda to shame.
If you cry after anyone in any party loses an election, you should not be covering politics. If you're that emotionally connected, pick another field, or call yourself an advocate and not a journalist.
If you cry after anyone in any party loses an election, you should not be covering politics. If you're that emotionally connected, pick another field, or call yourself an advocate and not a journalist.
2
Constance - you are so right. Anyone who demonstrates a deep emotional commitment to a candidate is an advocate, not a journalist.
1
Very few homophobes, racists, or Islamaphobes consider themselves homophobes, racists, or Islamophobes. They just think there's something inately wrong with homosexuals, Blacks, and Muslims.
It is possible that some of the people who voted for Trump were not overtly racists, that racism is not the driving force in their lives.
But we do know one thing. Overt racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, misogyny, and Islamophobia were not disqualifying to them.
And that makes them anti-Semites, xenophobes, misogynists, and Islamophobes.
Even if they claim otherwise.
It is possible that some of the people who voted for Trump were not overtly racists, that racism is not the driving force in their lives.
But we do know one thing. Overt racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, misogyny, and Islamophobia were not disqualifying to them.
And that makes them anti-Semites, xenophobes, misogynists, and Islamophobes.
Even if they claim otherwise.
2
My subscription will expire and will not be renewed. Same with the Washington Post. The campaign coverage was repulsive in its bias. And I believe contributed to the horrific behaviors we are witnessing in the aftermath of the election. After all, when a newspaper of record convinces its liberal base that the deck is stacked 100% in HRC's favor, the overwhelming disappointment became palpable, manifesting itself in name-calling, gross intolerance and in the extreme, rioting. I am not a bigot, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a racist or an anti-Semite. But the NY Times et al has labeled me as such. I am also not ashamed that I am white. Adios, NY Times. I will miss the puzzle, though!
1
As a decades-long home delivery subscriber who cancelled in January when it became clear that the Times coverage of Sanders was increasingly warped, I scrambled to find on-line sources far more reliable--sources that reliably predicted the debacle that was the Clinton campaign.
Why didn't the Times have a clue to the ineptitude of the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
I can see by the 'readers' picks' here that the David Brock forces that hijacked the NYT comments in or about February 2016 are still out in force.
I can also see how the Times' bias towards Clinton has created completely misinformed readers.
Why didn't the Times have a clue to the ineptitude of the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
I can see by the 'readers' picks' here that the David Brock forces that hijacked the NYT comments in or about February 2016 are still out in force.
I can also see how the Times' bias towards Clinton has created completely misinformed readers.
1
I'm a social conservative - although, being European, that means something else over here, for example religion and obsessions with guns or abortion are not part of it.
Nevertheless, I was always happy to rely on the Times as my primary news source. The Times is extremely biased, there is absolutely no question about it. But I like to read contrarian views, and I am able to detect biased opinion in an article and separate it from the reported facts. And the Times just has a lot of resources available to deliver quality reporting that no one else can deliver. Especially in areas unrelated to politics, I have a high opinion of the paper.
But the election has changed my attitude. I was fine with being endlessly confronted with strong liberal opinions and editorials. But now it turns out that the Times missed the facts and had indeed been disconnected from reality - after claiming, and making me believe, that it was Trump and his supporters that were disconnected from reality.
This has to have consequences. So I started to also read conservative sources like Breitbart to complete the picture. I can only encourage everyone, especially liberals, to do the same.
Nevertheless, I was always happy to rely on the Times as my primary news source. The Times is extremely biased, there is absolutely no question about it. But I like to read contrarian views, and I am able to detect biased opinion in an article and separate it from the reported facts. And the Times just has a lot of resources available to deliver quality reporting that no one else can deliver. Especially in areas unrelated to politics, I have a high opinion of the paper.
But the election has changed my attitude. I was fine with being endlessly confronted with strong liberal opinions and editorials. But now it turns out that the Times missed the facts and had indeed been disconnected from reality - after claiming, and making me believe, that it was Trump and his supporters that were disconnected from reality.
This has to have consequences. So I started to also read conservative sources like Breitbart to complete the picture. I can only encourage everyone, especially liberals, to do the same.
1
Aside from the terribly misleading forecasting odometer, I thought the Times' coverage of the campaign was quite good. I hate all of the attention to the horse race aspect of politics instead of the issues and the candidates' traits. The odometer was a particularly bad example of the former and it buttressed the view that the Times was leaning toward Clinton. I'm sure she doesn't think you were! And I must also say that I've been moved to write this because of Trump's recent comments about your paper and the media generally. Are we going to have to listen to his whining for his entire presidency? Is it too much to hope that he will grow up?
Add me to the list of people canceling my subscription to the NYT. This article, and the letter from Baquet & Sulzberger, miss the point entirely. The Times chronicled every tweet and utterance of the puerile Trump for well over a year and in the process helped fuel a media sensation. Where was coverage of the issues? If you search, you find no coverage of any of Clinton's important policy speeches, such as the one on mental health delivered the day Trump went to Mexico. Only after The Washington Post shamed the Times into some journalism did this newspaper do some substantive reporting on Trump's business practices and legal problems. Too late: the "isn't this great entertainment" approach for 18 months coupled with "emails will destroy the Republic" coverage of Clinton did the job.
Sure, I see why Trump supporters are angered by the coverage: this paper treated him as a benign clown for far too long, then made some "we're shocked" noises about the actual words coming out of his mouth. But "liberal" the coverage was not: it was click bait, pure and simple. The NYT abandoned any semblance of journalism, let alone journalistic integrity. My next "click" will be to cancel my subscription.
Sure, I see why Trump supporters are angered by the coverage: this paper treated him as a benign clown for far too long, then made some "we're shocked" noises about the actual words coming out of his mouth. But "liberal" the coverage was not: it was click bait, pure and simple. The NYT abandoned any semblance of journalism, let alone journalistic integrity. My next "click" will be to cancel my subscription.
2
I have an easy fix.
Don't read the NYT.
Don't read the NYT.
Ms. Spayd - look at today's article titled "Trump, on YouTube, Pledges to Create Jobs. Why add "on YouTube" to the title? Why call it an "infomercial-style video"? Are those pejoratives important to the reporting of the content of Trump's announcement? Are they included because the NYT is upset that Trump didn't hold a news conference that would have given the old guard media the first crack at reporting it? I'm sorry but it seems that the NYT will continue to put a negative spin on anything that Trump does no matter what you write about how upset people are about that.
3
I hope you do speak to those women in NC. I would like to know how they reconcile an appointment like Bannon and a potential appointment like Sessions with any sort of civil rights progress. Please continue calling out Trump and his associates for their words and deeds. I and millions of others are counting on you not to be a Trump mouthpiece.
1
Adding my voice to the disappointment, too. But my complaint for the Times, and for journalism in general with the election coverage, was a lack of focusing on Clinton's ideas. I thought the Times' coverage of Clinton was pretty negative with so many stories starting with her emails or lack of popularity. Every time one of those two things were the lead idea in a story, it reinforced the idea, even if the actually story was "supportive." I think if Trump's inflammatory presentation had received less coverage, if reporters had pressed him more on his plans and simply reported he would not respond, and if they had focused less on Clinton's negatives, perhaps some readers might have come away with different opinions. It wasn't really until the last couple of months that the press seemed to realize, despite their predictions, that Clinton was losing and started reporting some more positive stories about her. And starting talking about the misogyny some of us had been complaining about from the get-go.
1
But not a word about equating every Trumpian outrage with Clinton's e-mail scandal? Not a single word? I understand your need - as a commercial enterprise - not to alienate Trump supporters, but at what price? You say they don't want to be regarded as racists, anti-semites, misogynists, etc. I'm sure they don't. Who would? But they voted for a man who gives every appearance of not minding these attitudes. Are you saying that in some circumstances- please name them - it's all right to be racist, anti-semitic or misogynistic because other considerations take precedence?
2
There is an enormous problem with the public editor's entire argument.
She says about the 10 affluent white women who impress her so much with their smartness and reasonableness:
"They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim".
So what? There were plenty of Germans in the 1930s who voted for Hitler who did not consider themselves anti-Semites.
Is Liz Spayd truly saying that "good" NY Times coverage of Hitler's rise would have ignored what he said and emphasized that there were actually some Germans who supported him and claimed not to be anti-Semitic themselves? Just good Germans who did not mind if their leader was saying hateful things?
These 10 women did not have a problem voting for the leader of the birther movement who riled up racists to convince them that Obama was born in Kenya and lying about it. I guess it was just amusing to them in that "non-racist" way that white women can be amused. Maybe those white women believed Trump when he told them it wasn't his fault for repeating that lie for 5 years (and claiming he had proof!) because someone else said it first. Too bad Liz Spayd didn't bother to ask them. It would have been interesting to hear their response as to how non-racists like themselves feel about what Trump spent the last 5 years saying about Obama. Just as we can only imagine what those Germans whose best friends were Jewish would have to say about why they were such strong Hitler supporters.
She says about the 10 affluent white women who impress her so much with their smartness and reasonableness:
"They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim".
So what? There were plenty of Germans in the 1930s who voted for Hitler who did not consider themselves anti-Semites.
Is Liz Spayd truly saying that "good" NY Times coverage of Hitler's rise would have ignored what he said and emphasized that there were actually some Germans who supported him and claimed not to be anti-Semitic themselves? Just good Germans who did not mind if their leader was saying hateful things?
These 10 women did not have a problem voting for the leader of the birther movement who riled up racists to convince them that Obama was born in Kenya and lying about it. I guess it was just amusing to them in that "non-racist" way that white women can be amused. Maybe those white women believed Trump when he told them it wasn't his fault for repeating that lie for 5 years (and claiming he had proof!) because someone else said it first. Too bad Liz Spayd didn't bother to ask them. It would have been interesting to hear their response as to how non-racists like themselves feel about what Trump spent the last 5 years saying about Obama. Just as we can only imagine what those Germans whose best friends were Jewish would have to say about why they were such strong Hitler supporters.
3
Just watched Trump's video. Two things. One, the "news story" accompanying it is not supported by the video. More opinion journalism not marked accordingly. Two, bully for Trump! After lambasting the media, he realizes he doesn't need them. He'll talk to the country via Twitter and YouTube and drive the NYT crazy! Now all can see "the facts" the NYT chooses to report. Woohoo! Gatekeeper season is now officially over. Stick a fork in it.
I'd cancel my subscription to the NYT but for the fact that it's so entertaining to see everyday all that is wrong with journalism as practiced by the paper. The emperor lost his clothes.
I'd cancel my subscription to the NYT but for the fact that it's so entertaining to see everyday all that is wrong with journalism as practiced by the paper. The emperor lost his clothes.
2
I'm not sure what our conservative friends have to complain about. The Times, and other major media outlets, routinely played the equivalency game by feeling the need to offset every Trump problem with a rehashing of Clinton's. If we had 30 articles about different, normally-disqualifying Trump issues, it would be met with 30 articles about Clinton's server. The reflection on the Times reporting ought to be on that, and not any complaint about a bias that was nonexistent.
1
Yes, by all means try to understand people who don't *consider* themselves homophobic, racist, or anti-Muslim but nonetheless voted with both eyes open for a man whose administration *is* homophobic, racist, and anti-Muslim. If anything, that makes them even more culpable for the disaster looming over this country because of President-elect Trump. And it makes you, Ms. Spayd, as reprehensible and self-serving as those who try to defend voting for a fascist.
Consider my subscription canceled. I'll try to find a newspaper that won't be the mouthpiece of the Reich.
Consider my subscription canceled. I'll try to find a newspaper that won't be the mouthpiece of the Reich.
3
I realize this is a column and not a news story, and a "public editor" is supposed to be sensitive to the views of readers. But don't normal journalistic standards apply? This column contains no facts to back up the insinuation that the Trump women from North Carolina and other supporters have been misrepresented. They seem to be saying that they don't buy into Trump's stances on race and immigration. If so, how do they square that with supporting him? Can't tell from the column. Doesn't appear that the writer pressed them on it.
Is the writer just buying into these gripes because it seems like the right thing to do now that there is concern about whether the news media got the coverage right? Pretty sloppy, if so. The Times needs to find a more rigorous ombudsman, or ombudswoman.
Is the writer just buying into these gripes because it seems like the right thing to do now that there is concern about whether the news media got the coverage right? Pretty sloppy, if so. The Times needs to find a more rigorous ombudsman, or ombudswoman.
Sometimes I have time to read almost all the comments, now I don't, and I am sorry if I am repeating what others have said.
I am a Canadian. Our press, particularly in coverage of US and world affairs is not the best, so I subscribe to others, the NYT's digital subscription was my first in 2011. For decades I used to buy the print copy when it was available in my remote city, and was thrilled by it.
My disenchantment with election coverage started with your denigration and open distain of Bernie Sanders. I was shocked that someone was bringing new ideas to your political arena. Why should I care, you may ask? Because, your political process, and your policies affect every single person in the rest of the world. As one of your neighbours, and our largest trading partner, of course I am interested.
Your coverage of Sen. Sanders was horrible. You endorsed HRC before the first primary. You talked about his hair, his clothes, his posture, his gestures... but never was there any real in-depth coverage of his ideas. Dr. Krugman dismissed his call for universal, non-profit health care out of hand, and did no analysis at all about his idea for a very small tax on Wall Street trades to pay for it. Never once did you explore how this would save your country between 5-7% of GDP spending compared to other developed nations for universal coverage.
The conclusion drawn is that you are the handmaidens of the establishment, not just the political one, but the money one.
I am a Canadian. Our press, particularly in coverage of US and world affairs is not the best, so I subscribe to others, the NYT's digital subscription was my first in 2011. For decades I used to buy the print copy when it was available in my remote city, and was thrilled by it.
My disenchantment with election coverage started with your denigration and open distain of Bernie Sanders. I was shocked that someone was bringing new ideas to your political arena. Why should I care, you may ask? Because, your political process, and your policies affect every single person in the rest of the world. As one of your neighbours, and our largest trading partner, of course I am interested.
Your coverage of Sen. Sanders was horrible. You endorsed HRC before the first primary. You talked about his hair, his clothes, his posture, his gestures... but never was there any real in-depth coverage of his ideas. Dr. Krugman dismissed his call for universal, non-profit health care out of hand, and did no analysis at all about his idea for a very small tax on Wall Street trades to pay for it. Never once did you explore how this would save your country between 5-7% of GDP spending compared to other developed nations for universal coverage.
The conclusion drawn is that you are the handmaidens of the establishment, not just the political one, but the money one.
1
So now it's news that NY Times is biased???
Normally no NYT columnist supported the Republican candidate, but this year none NYT even considered Trump a viable candidate. Now, NYT coverage is all about what a horrible decision the US made.
The SNL mock bubble is real.
Normally no NYT columnist supported the Republican candidate, but this year none NYT even considered Trump a viable candidate. Now, NYT coverage is all about what a horrible decision the US made.
The SNL mock bubble is real.
Terrible coverage throughout the election. Humanizing Trump supporters who are willing to turn over the country to a fascist cabal is the last straw. My only hope is that his policies cause them the most harm. I will be the last generation of my family to read this once esteemed paper.
2
Do you seriously think half the country is not even human? Are you open to the idea that you might be misjudging something here?
The vote tally confirms you are surrounded by Trump supporters. But, they'll never let you know, because they don't want to engage a name calling bully.
The vote tally confirms you are surrounded by Trump supporters. But, they'll never let you know, because they don't want to engage a name calling bully.
2
The NYT like most media covered every negative aspect of Hillary Clinton and her campaign, for years.....
The tide turned when Trump hijacked the cameras, but not journalists, to tour his new hotel.
Speaking factually about Trump isn't one-sided news. People voting for someone with racist and sexist views does factually mean that those people support those views.
I would like to see more coverage about what we're going to do with an alleged sexual predator as president-elect.
The tide turned when Trump hijacked the cameras, but not journalists, to tour his new hotel.
Speaking factually about Trump isn't one-sided news. People voting for someone with racist and sexist views does factually mean that those people support those views.
I would like to see more coverage about what we're going to do with an alleged sexual predator as president-elect.
1
It's surely ironic that had the Times covered the election objectively, there's a good chance a Democrat rather than a carnival barker would be riding to the White House January 20th. The Times' flagrant attempt to shape the outcome of this election I'm sure repulsed at least 1% of voters who otherwise might have used their votes to swing the election to Clinton. Patronizing reporting, the shilling for Clinton from before the first primary, turned our paper of record into Huffington Post east. I am a 50-year reader of the Times. To me, more disconcerting than a Clinton or Trump presidency, is the Times' abandonment of its integrity. To sell your journalistic soul and have nothing to show but a compromised reputation - only compounds the transgression. Now where do we turn for trustworthy reporting? The BBC? The Christian Science Monitor? Oh, Herald Tribune, I remember you.
1
It is clear that Dean Baquet and Arthur Sulzberger are lying to its readers that this newspaper will "rededicate" itself to reporting the "truth."
Case in point, the Trump propaganda machine continues with today's article about his YouTube video and all of the fawning comments in the article from those saying this piece of propanda makes Trump look "presidemtial" to others who claim this meyhod of "direct" communication is what President Obama has done.
Instead, of emphaszing the truth that Trump is avoiding the press - with the exception of softball "interviews" with CBS and the Wall Street Journal - or that he completely contradicted what we campaigned on, all we got was an article that could have been easily wrote by his communication staff.
Shame on the New York Times for, once again, acting as a willing mouthpiece for Donald Trump, instead of reporting the truth behing this video, or better yet, choosing not to report this crass piece of propaganda.
Case in point, the Trump propaganda machine continues with today's article about his YouTube video and all of the fawning comments in the article from those saying this piece of propanda makes Trump look "presidemtial" to others who claim this meyhod of "direct" communication is what President Obama has done.
Instead, of emphaszing the truth that Trump is avoiding the press - with the exception of softball "interviews" with CBS and the Wall Street Journal - or that he completely contradicted what we campaigned on, all we got was an article that could have been easily wrote by his communication staff.
Shame on the New York Times for, once again, acting as a willing mouthpiece for Donald Trump, instead of reporting the truth behing this video, or better yet, choosing not to report this crass piece of propaganda.
1
Disappointed in the coverage, eh? So was I, and friends of mine. "Questions raised", "shadows cast" over HRC's emails. Incessant mildly negative coverage of her that never dropped an issue or admitted that it was overblown. And now the Times itself seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate the sensitivities of the new regime.
Ms Capwell is upset because she and her friends do not consider themselves 'homophobic, racist, or anti-Muslim'. Umm... They voted for Trump/Pence, so presumably support their positions: Mike Pence's record in Indiana seems to have been less than friendly to LGBTQ. David Duke & Co. were enthusiastic about Trump, Trump himself talked about banning Muslims. And Steve Bannon, a stalwart of the alt-right, is a senior figure on the new White House staff. I am sure it distresses Ms Capwell that the alt-right has some rather anti-Semitic currents. There is an old adage about sleeping with dogs and fleas that may apply here, but I am sure the sentiments of Ms Capwell and her friends are of the purest.
Actually, I think your piece is a quintessential example of 'both sides' journalism that normalizes formerly fringe attitudes.
Ms Capwell is upset because she and her friends do not consider themselves 'homophobic, racist, or anti-Muslim'. Umm... They voted for Trump/Pence, so presumably support their positions: Mike Pence's record in Indiana seems to have been less than friendly to LGBTQ. David Duke & Co. were enthusiastic about Trump, Trump himself talked about banning Muslims. And Steve Bannon, a stalwart of the alt-right, is a senior figure on the new White House staff. I am sure it distresses Ms Capwell that the alt-right has some rather anti-Semitic currents. There is an old adage about sleeping with dogs and fleas that may apply here, but I am sure the sentiments of Ms Capwell and her friends are of the purest.
Actually, I think your piece is a quintessential example of 'both sides' journalism that normalizes formerly fringe attitudes.
1
That this is the "lesson" you have learned from this campaign is breathtaking to me. I thought it was about facts, not balancing some imaginary scales. I am a white woman from a rural Midwestern town, where the industry is long gone and the only growth is in the vacation homes of wealthier urbanites. If you think your failure was in not being nice enough to people like the ones from my hometown, let me tell you something you don't seem able to grasp yet: Pretending that there was anything even remotely reasonable about Trump and his plans was the worst thing you could do to them. To insinuate that they can't handle the truth about their hero is condescending to them and frankly insulting to those of us that got out and bothered to learn about the world outside of that bubble - if you think the "liberal echo chamber" is bad, try the "conservative white Christian echo chamber". But to print something so tone-deaf after the events of the last two weeks is to go far beyond liberal and conservative. I am cancelling my subscription - I don't plan to pay to watch you tell people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.
1
Yes better coverage was needed. It is also needed right now. Where is the reporting on the Russian hacking of our election? Esquire has a frighteningly comprehensive breakdown of what happened; why are major papers ignoring this story?
1
The Times owes everyone an apology and an internal evaluation of all the lunatic Liberals in its employ. I don't know if the Times followed NBC, CBS, ABC, or they followed the Times, but, in a way, it was good for America. Now, those that refused to believe the Media was biased KNOW that it is. Now they will ignore most of the garbage printed and use their brain to make decisions.
1
So Ms. Capwell denies being a racist, but Mr. Trump's obvious and overt racism was not enough to sway her against him. In all my years, I have never known any racist person, no matter how blatantly they displayed there racism, to admit to it. Universally they deny racism and that race has any bearing at all on decisions they make or positions they hold.
I don't know how Ms. Cindy Capwell and her good friends view themselves, but I do know they voted for a person that they knew was overtly racist and misogynistic. Yes they did that, but aren't you so glad they're "giving the Times a chance." While you're sucking up to them, you might want to ask them what they thought about the Times coverage of Hillary Clinton, but you obviously don't really care about that anyway, so live on.
I don't know how Ms. Cindy Capwell and her good friends view themselves, but I do know they voted for a person that they knew was overtly racist and misogynistic. Yes they did that, but aren't you so glad they're "giving the Times a chance." While you're sucking up to them, you might want to ask them what they thought about the Times coverage of Hillary Clinton, but you obviously don't really care about that anyway, so live on.
To me, what the MSM with The Times leading the way most has to own and take responsibility for, is the atmosphere of fear that they relentlessly crafted and transmitted to their readers for the entire year of the campaign - fear of Donald Trump, fear of those who supported him...fear and division.
And worse, that it continues to do so, ever more relentlessly, in the 3 weeks now, subsequent to Donald Trump's victory. This, despite apologies and promises to return to the good practices of real journalism.
I'm reminded of a post that i read from a gay man on a LGBT for Trump Facebook page - he spoke of his tremendous excitement and optimism following the election that quickly turned to fear and isolation, when he was ridiculed and attacked by his friends and community. As a straight man who grew up in the extremely liberal environment of Greenwich Village in the '60s, i've had a similar experience with my "liberal" friends...not that i've argued with them - the intolerance and bigotry that they often project is consuming.
Is it any wonder that Clinton's supporters, whipped into a vitriolic frenzy of fear, and egged on by articles supporting ANYTHING other that a peaceful transition of power (what this nation needs desperately now), continue to march, riot, and spew anti Trump (and sadly anti Trump supporter) rhetoric, while refusing to accept the fair results of a democratic election?
Shame on the Times for promoting hatred and division under the guise of journalism.
And worse, that it continues to do so, ever more relentlessly, in the 3 weeks now, subsequent to Donald Trump's victory. This, despite apologies and promises to return to the good practices of real journalism.
I'm reminded of a post that i read from a gay man on a LGBT for Trump Facebook page - he spoke of his tremendous excitement and optimism following the election that quickly turned to fear and isolation, when he was ridiculed and attacked by his friends and community. As a straight man who grew up in the extremely liberal environment of Greenwich Village in the '60s, i've had a similar experience with my "liberal" friends...not that i've argued with them - the intolerance and bigotry that they often project is consuming.
Is it any wonder that Clinton's supporters, whipped into a vitriolic frenzy of fear, and egged on by articles supporting ANYTHING other that a peaceful transition of power (what this nation needs desperately now), continue to march, riot, and spew anti Trump (and sadly anti Trump supporter) rhetoric, while refusing to accept the fair results of a democratic election?
Shame on the Times for promoting hatred and division under the guise of journalism.
2
Does Fox News have a public editor? I want to call and complain about the biased coverage
This column is disgraceful. Thanks in large part to the supposedly balanced coverage that made Clinton's email non-event seem equivalent to the endless lies, gross misbehaviors and terrifyingly racist, sexist, homophobic and environmentally catastrophic policy proposals, Trump won the election. It is no exaggeration to say this outcome threatens not only American civil society, but global stability, not to mention the planet's environmental viability. And your public editor suggests the paper should have given more time to Trump's supporters. Now more than ever mainstream media needs to dig in and fight back against the tidal wave of disinformation that will be rolling out of the GOP-controlled government. This election may be the beginning of the end of democracy in the west. This opinion may signal the end of The New York Times' central role as one of mainstream journalism's most important bulwarks against authoritarianism and propaganda. This is a shame because there are many fine reporters and writers who work for this paper. I hope they get a public editor they and Times readers deserve.
I found this piece disturbing and an unnecessary apologia. If anything, the nyt seemed to color the Clinton campaign harshly with its apocalyptic portents of shadows, struggles, and clouds. Trump and his supporters were displayed, usually in their own words and images, as exactly what they were. If that's uncomfortable or ugly, well, yes...
Your biased "coverage" and unabashed Hillary slurping was the worst of the worst. You should be ashamed to call yourselves journalists.
1
I don't recall reading a NYT article calling all Trump supporters homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. And those of us who oppose Trump's policies don't need to read the NYT to form an opinion about Trump supporters. It's a large portion of American voters and no one can sensibly narrow a population down to a pre-determined set of behaviors. However, Trump supporters have one significant characteristic in common: they are comfortable with a president who endorses policies that are racist, sexist, and anti-Muslim in tone and purpose... and whose political advisors have clearly made homophobic, racist, sexist, or anti-Muslim statements as integral parts of their policy goals. It is a mystery to me how these "liberal-minded" Trump supporters can reconcile such contrary ideologies.
2
The propaganda is over. Breathe a big sigh of relief.
Lots of homophobes and racists would swear up and down that they are neither homophobic nor racist. Those who voted for Trump may not use racial slurs or think much about gay rights. However, the failure to consider the lives of people of color and LGBTQ people is simply a different manifestation of racism and homophobia. The failure of white America to care about the lives of others is a subtler but more dangerous threat.
I cancelled my subscription to the Times back in 2005, because I couldn't take the anti- Republican bias. Sad how things never change there. Recommend that those who can't take the bias just stop reading it. Believe me: you won't miss it.
"I found myself wishing someone from the newsroom was on the line with me, especially to hear how many of the more liberal voters wanted more balanced coverage. Not an echo chamber of liberal intellectualism, but an honest reflection of reality."
Exactly. I voted for Sanders, and when he lost, for Clinton. But I'm still bothered by coverage in which it's easy to determine the reporter's point of view. Indeed, I was one of the few to object to the use of the word "lie" to represent some of Trump's misrepresentations. Not because he hadn't, but because "lie" is an emotionally freighted term and when it is used, the article no longer seems impartial.
I applaud the Times and other news organizations for standing up to Mr. Trump's bullying. But the best way to do that is with objective, just the facts ma'm coverage, because readers will give greater credence to an impartial news source than an opinionated one.
And please -- the Times's electoral coverage has been all over the map, ignoring Bernie Sanders, alternately idolizing Hillary Clinton and attacking her over nothing at all, condemning Trump and at the same time giving him the lion's share of coverage, precise what he wanted. And as you so rightly pointed out, it ignored the feelings of voters, reporting almost exclusively on an urban agenda that downplayed the loss of jobs to trade agreements and immigration while overplaying identity politics. It's time to return to the impartiality that made this newspaper great.
Exactly. I voted for Sanders, and when he lost, for Clinton. But I'm still bothered by coverage in which it's easy to determine the reporter's point of view. Indeed, I was one of the few to object to the use of the word "lie" to represent some of Trump's misrepresentations. Not because he hadn't, but because "lie" is an emotionally freighted term and when it is used, the article no longer seems impartial.
I applaud the Times and other news organizations for standing up to Mr. Trump's bullying. But the best way to do that is with objective, just the facts ma'm coverage, because readers will give greater credence to an impartial news source than an opinionated one.
And please -- the Times's electoral coverage has been all over the map, ignoring Bernie Sanders, alternately idolizing Hillary Clinton and attacking her over nothing at all, condemning Trump and at the same time giving him the lion's share of coverage, precise what he wanted. And as you so rightly pointed out, it ignored the feelings of voters, reporting almost exclusively on an urban agenda that downplayed the loss of jobs to trade agreements and immigration while overplaying identity politics. It's time to return to the impartiality that made this newspaper great.
6
I wish you had offered a term preferrable to the word "lie" that the Times could have used to decribe Trump's statements. The man has repeatedly said things that are objectively and undeniably untrue and has on many occasions denied having said or done things that he is on tape having admitted doing. { A perfect example -- in the 2nd debate, he denied having sexually assaulted women after all of us had heard him bragging about doing so,} A lie is a lie and a "just the facts" approach calls for its use. I wish, unlike you, that the main stream media had used the word earlier and more often in their coverage of Trump. If they had, maybe we would not be about to be inundated by a four year avalanche of lies from this champion liar.
I think "lie" was used incorrectly often. Trump sayd things that are just completely wrong, often, but his statements are easily fact checked. So they aren't lies.
He is "ignorant" or even "stupid" but not lying.
Here is a lie: I was in Pittsburgh last Wednesday (when you weren't.)
Here is a wrong statement, not a lie: Pittsburgh is the capital of Pennsylvania.
Trump does the latter all the time.
I think Trump is bizarrely honest. He's similar to my late father, who had no ability to filter himself, insults included. My father couldn't lie, but he could sure be insulting. Trump seems to open his mouth and let out whatever is in his brain at that exact moment.
He is "ignorant" or even "stupid" but not lying.
Here is a lie: I was in Pittsburgh last Wednesday (when you weren't.)
Here is a wrong statement, not a lie: Pittsburgh is the capital of Pennsylvania.
Trump does the latter all the time.
I think Trump is bizarrely honest. He's similar to my late father, who had no ability to filter himself, insults included. My father couldn't lie, but he could sure be insulting. Trump seems to open his mouth and let out whatever is in his brain at that exact moment.
Adding my voice to those very disappointed in coverage. I was not a Trump supporter but The Times was/is over the top and I am not sure what to do about my subscription. So many great writers undermined by unworthy stories and approaches. Particularly in the headlines. ... And some that still haven't stopped to reflect and think before dashing off headlines like Trump Transition in Disarray. Sad. Some soul searching is in order. Need to hold Trump to account -- but the facts are usually all that are needed.
30
The campaign was nasty and uncivil. Trump's campaign speeches were filled with hyperbole, much of it divisive, some of it vile. Both Clinton's and Obama's campaigns reached down to historical low points with their personal vilification of Trump and their disdainful portrayal of his supporters. The NYT dedicated it's resources to the Clinton/Obama narrative. And the NYT emphasized that undermining the election results should be treated as an assault on America's rule of law. However, as Obama said to Boehner and McConnell in Jan., 2009, "Elections have consequences..."
Donald Trump has pivoted sharply toward his responsibility to act as President-Elect of all the people. He has reconciled with Republican leaders in Congress and is including them in his administration. Conservative appointments are to be expected to replace Obama's progressive staff. Where Obama recruited far leftist Van Jones as an advisor, Trump recruited rightist Steve Bannon. Like Hillary said, "What difference does it make".
Back in more civil times it was customary to allow a new President 100 days to recruit policy leaders and initiate his/her programs. The MSM has been on full frontal attack against Trump since November 9th. The last vestiges of thoughtful reportage and open-minded journalism appear to be vanishing. If this is the final maturation of advocacy journalism, where the hell are we supposed to go for unbiased information?
Donald Trump has pivoted sharply toward his responsibility to act as President-Elect of all the people. He has reconciled with Republican leaders in Congress and is including them in his administration. Conservative appointments are to be expected to replace Obama's progressive staff. Where Obama recruited far leftist Van Jones as an advisor, Trump recruited rightist Steve Bannon. Like Hillary said, "What difference does it make".
Back in more civil times it was customary to allow a new President 100 days to recruit policy leaders and initiate his/her programs. The MSM has been on full frontal attack against Trump since November 9th. The last vestiges of thoughtful reportage and open-minded journalism appear to be vanishing. If this is the final maturation of advocacy journalism, where the hell are we supposed to go for unbiased information?
12
It is obvious your post shows where your bias lies, when you make comparisions between Van Jones and Steve Bannon and then add to this bias by peddling a totally out of context quote from Hillary Clinton.
The fact is that Steve Bannon has a well documented history of making racist and anti-semetic comments using powerful fringe right media outlet to amplify this hate.
Meanwhile, what is Van Jones' "crime"?
He call GOP senate lawmakers "a**holes" for their refusal to have up-or-down votes on President Obama's judicial nominations.
Likewise, your "outrage" at how the MSM is reporting on Trump nominations, which are far outside any normal nominations that we have seem from ANY president in modern times demonstrate your ideas of "civility" are also quite outside the norm.
The fact is that Steve Bannon has a well documented history of making racist and anti-semetic comments using powerful fringe right media outlet to amplify this hate.
Meanwhile, what is Van Jones' "crime"?
He call GOP senate lawmakers "a**holes" for their refusal to have up-or-down votes on President Obama's judicial nominations.
Likewise, your "outrage" at how the MSM is reporting on Trump nominations, which are far outside any normal nominations that we have seem from ANY president in modern times demonstrate your ideas of "civility" are also quite outside the norm.
How one can claim a report is biased when it is simply reporting what the president-elect did or said is beyond me. You're just trying to make yourself feel better by supporting a man with such a dark soul. Pitiful.
Mike, Van Jones isn't a criminal, he was a far left polemicist and Obama advisor. Jones called the election a "whitelash"on CNN, hardly a mainstream view. Steve Bannon is a rightist polemicist and Trump advisor. Bannon has not authored any hateful articles I've read, beyond the "platform" comment to the LAT years ago. Neither of these advisors are intended to have policy-making authority.
Also, I confess to taking the Hillary quote out of context as you pointed out. She used that phrase to defend substituting Sid Blumenthal's artifice of the offensive internet video for the terrorist attack in congressional testimony about her Benghazi conduct.
We've made the Executive branch more powerful and I expect more policy whiplash with the increased political divisiveness of the electorate, and changes in control of the executive about every ten years. It would be more stable to have a unified policy with bilateral congressional cooperation. Perhaps if Van Jones and Steve Bannon sat down over a beer sometime they could lead us to a compromise.
Also, I confess to taking the Hillary quote out of context as you pointed out. She used that phrase to defend substituting Sid Blumenthal's artifice of the offensive internet video for the terrorist attack in congressional testimony about her Benghazi conduct.
We've made the Executive branch more powerful and I expect more policy whiplash with the increased political divisiveness of the electorate, and changes in control of the executive about every ten years. It would be more stable to have a unified policy with bilateral congressional cooperation. Perhaps if Van Jones and Steve Bannon sat down over a beer sometime they could lead us to a compromise.
1
Had I relied strictly on the NYT for information I would have enthusiastically voted for Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton because I relied on multiple sources of information for the news and concluded that neither was fit to be president.
Now that Trump will be the president I will give him the benefit of the doubt and wish him the best. In other words I am rooting for him to succeed. If the NYT was smart it would do the same and avoid the hatchet pieces like the story about how Trump's transition team was in disarray.
Now that Trump will be the president I will give him the benefit of the doubt and wish him the best. In other words I am rooting for him to succeed. If the NYT was smart it would do the same and avoid the hatchet pieces like the story about how Trump's transition team was in disarray.
22
Sometime during the last year a consensus seemed to develop among many established media organizations that it was politically correct to shape rather than report news on the Trump campaign. As the campaign progressed that consensus morphed into a collective belief that a Trump victory was improbable thereby exacerbating the tainted coverage. I believe supporters of all the candidates wanted fact-based coverage. Certainly many stories deserved editorial comment and that's the page where it's appropriate. This approach of diminishing the Trump campaign led to the apparent shock among many of the same reporters when Trump prevailed on Election Night. As an undergraduate student in Political Science one axiom I often heard was that readers should never be able to determine the political leanings of a reporter based on the contents of his or her story.
14
I'm shocked. The NYT is biased! Next thing you know you will be telling me the sun will rise tomorrow!
13
"I also hope someone will pay a visit to Cindy Capwell and her friends in North Carolina. They’d welcome a chance to reflect back on The Times’s coverage from a living room full of Trump backers." I hope someone will pay a visit to every single person of color in North Carolina and hold their hands, console them in this KKK-Putin disaster, considering the party of Ms. Capwell helped to disenfranchise them and bring utter terror to the office of President. Good Lord Almighty NYTimes, what is this nonsense you have published? Pandering to your lowest of readership? Please.
37
Wow, you sound racist, Kim. And you obviously believed the idotic mainstream media that has instilled this unreasonable "fear" into everyone they could, in hopes to defeat Trump. He is obviously not perfect, and we all know Hillary was even further from honorable. But he IS OUR president, (yours, mine, the entire U.S.), and he is NOT the racist, misogynistic, whatever else kind of monster the media painted him to be. They left no sti=one unturned in trying to elect Hillary, and they almost succeeded.
He will do fine, he will not harm you, and you will be fine as well. No more fear. The boogeyman the news media warned us all about does not really exist. Time to get back to living, and trust that he will surround himself with a diverse team of wise and good people, women, men, of many ethnicities, and do what is best and right for our collective good as a nation.
He will do fine, he will not harm you, and you will be fine as well. No more fear. The boogeyman the news media warned us all about does not really exist. Time to get back to living, and trust that he will surround himself with a diverse team of wise and good people, women, men, of many ethnicities, and do what is best and right for our collective good as a nation.
2
The recent editorial lamenting the loss of the TPP underlines how the NYT still doesn't get it.
Characterizing those that support Trump as uneducated, sexists and racists shows the NYT still doesn't get it.
Backing Clintons assertions about Russia and its attempt to implement Cold War 2.0 show the NYT still doesn't get it.
The NYT and its neo-liberal American empire is in its death throws but according to everyone in the NYT bubble it is all the fault of, well, everybody that didn't do as the NYT told and vote for Hillary.
The arrogance, inability to admit mistakes and doubling down on attacking those they disagree with is not only tiresome, it has destroyed the credibility to the NYT.
I use to read the NYT for news, now only to laugh at its hysteria.
Characterizing those that support Trump as uneducated, sexists and racists shows the NYT still doesn't get it.
Backing Clintons assertions about Russia and its attempt to implement Cold War 2.0 show the NYT still doesn't get it.
The NYT and its neo-liberal American empire is in its death throws but according to everyone in the NYT bubble it is all the fault of, well, everybody that didn't do as the NYT told and vote for Hillary.
The arrogance, inability to admit mistakes and doubling down on attacking those they disagree with is not only tiresome, it has destroyed the credibility to the NYT.
I use to read the NYT for news, now only to laugh at its hysteria.
18
Somebody earlier counted the number of times the word "liberal" occurs in this column. Ms. Spayd seems to have a problem with that word, and with the fact that--yes--the Times is a liberal newspaper, in its opinion pages and also in its less-opinionated, more objective, but not completely objective news articles.
Don't we by this time understand that it is impossible to express no opinion or point of view when we use language? Or when we select one topic to write about and not another? The Times was dismissive of Bernie's campaign, yes, and it shouldn't have been. But is it unfortunate that the Times describes the Trump campaign's hatefulness and fearmongering? No, that is what the campaign was. And the Times, liberal paper that it is, said so, and could even have said more about that.
Too bad that all the fact-checking, investigative reporting, and analysis didn't matter at all. It didn't matter that nobody else but Trump saw the thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering the September 11 attack. And nobody cared that he said John McCain wasn't a hero.
We've learned something about this country and it's not good news.
Don't we by this time understand that it is impossible to express no opinion or point of view when we use language? Or when we select one topic to write about and not another? The Times was dismissive of Bernie's campaign, yes, and it shouldn't have been. But is it unfortunate that the Times describes the Trump campaign's hatefulness and fearmongering? No, that is what the campaign was. And the Times, liberal paper that it is, said so, and could even have said more about that.
Too bad that all the fact-checking, investigative reporting, and analysis didn't matter at all. It didn't matter that nobody else but Trump saw the thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering the September 11 attack. And nobody cared that he said John McCain wasn't a hero.
We've learned something about this country and it's not good news.
26
It's always surprising when people have "something smart" to say to a reporter, the Times or not. Give me a break, many intelligent white woman voted for Trump because we see the real problems that need fixing. Not made up "issues" that only the left wing thinks important.
14
You see important issues that need fixing. So do I. But you hitched your wagon to a despicable character. A disrespectful, racist, misogynist, bully of a soul. And you have to own that. No one else. Sorry, but you're known by the company you keep. My parents certainly did not bring me up to speak and behave that way. I'm certain yours did not, either.
2
“But they also used the occasion to congratulate themselves on their swift, agile and creative coverage on election night, and they praised their journalism as fair to both candidates and unflinching in its scrutiny.”
BOTH candidates? On my ballot there were 5 presidential candidates! Just one more example of the NYT’s very poor coverage of the entire presidential primaries and general election campaigns and elections.
BOTH candidates? On my ballot there were 5 presidential candidates! Just one more example of the NYT’s very poor coverage of the entire presidential primaries and general election campaigns and elections.
10
I found it interesting that Liz Spayd, the public editor, took the side of the rabid Trump supporters earlier in the campaign. As Geneva Overholser noted:
"The primary response came from the then fairly new public editor, Liz Spayd, in an exceptionally weak column, urging Times journalists not to be intimidated by the false balance charge.
They weren’t.
Thank you Ms. Spyayd, for shutting down one of the few remaining real media organizations by warning reporters that if they didn't characterize the e-mails and server and Clinton Foundation as corrupt, they just weren't being fair to Trump because they were reporting all those negatives about him.
As Ethan Coen said so well in this very newspaper, thanks Ms. Spayd! Donald Trump's win could not have happened without you. And whatever he does to this country thanks to your constant "false equivalency" meme that requires the NY Times to smear a Democrat if they plan to report honestly on one of Trump's nonstop questionable actions - you can feel good that you worked hard to make Mr. Trump's and the alt-right's dreams come true.
The fact that the alt right still has you cowed is all we need to know about how much you will keep on helping President-elect Trump do whatever he wants to this country. Really -- it could not have happened without all your help. You surely can feel good that the alt-right approves while the rest of us suffer.
"The primary response came from the then fairly new public editor, Liz Spayd, in an exceptionally weak column, urging Times journalists not to be intimidated by the false balance charge.
They weren’t.
Thank you Ms. Spyayd, for shutting down one of the few remaining real media organizations by warning reporters that if they didn't characterize the e-mails and server and Clinton Foundation as corrupt, they just weren't being fair to Trump because they were reporting all those negatives about him.
As Ethan Coen said so well in this very newspaper, thanks Ms. Spayd! Donald Trump's win could not have happened without you. And whatever he does to this country thanks to your constant "false equivalency" meme that requires the NY Times to smear a Democrat if they plan to report honestly on one of Trump's nonstop questionable actions - you can feel good that you worked hard to make Mr. Trump's and the alt-right's dreams come true.
The fact that the alt right still has you cowed is all we need to know about how much you will keep on helping President-elect Trump do whatever he wants to this country. Really -- it could not have happened without all your help. You surely can feel good that the alt-right approves while the rest of us suffer.
42
Thanks for this column. While there is a swirl of anger at the media for the outcome of the election, I think a couple things are worth praising: 1) the Times acknowledged that it missed a big story and many underlying dimensions; 2) elsewhere, the Times has acknowledged that they may have lurched too far to the data side and missed stories that come from "shoe leather reporting" (as it was described elsewhere); 3) that the Times engaged in caricature of voters rather than analysis; and 4) they may have fallen into a something resembling an echo chamber. I find it wholly admirable that a paper of the Times's reputation is openly reckoning with the challenges of being a newspaper in today's world and with mis-steps made when confronted with remarkable circumstances.
4
The biggest problem the times has is they censor their comments they decry discrimination everywhere and all the time except when it comes to their comments. THAT is not a way to appeal to the Trumpists.
7
And please illuminate us why the New York Times should pander to the willfully ignorant, racists and bigots in our country, many of whom flocked to Donald Trump's clarion call of bird whistles and outright lies?
Are NYT articles biased? Yes, I think so.. at times. Do the news articles aspire to give readers that facts so they can have clear understanding of events? Yes, I believe so, overall. Generally I trust the integrity of NYT articles. Can there be improvement? Of course. Especially when considering events of the past year: the media's influence- some deliberate, some not- on politics has exploded. It may take years to fully understand what's going on.
What I find frustrating is how the Times is held to a higher standard than other news sources. Ms. Spayd offers a critical look at her publication, the implicit goal being to improve the journalistic standards at the Times and in her profession in general. The Fox News Politics site repurposed her column (added a few lines) into a story for a "Bias Alert" news column. What's their goal? To warn against trusting the Times and to manipulate readers, not to inform, showing obvious bias. No integrity. No self-awareness. No apologies.
Does this bring to mind a prominent public figure?
What I find frustrating is how the Times is held to a higher standard than other news sources. Ms. Spayd offers a critical look at her publication, the implicit goal being to improve the journalistic standards at the Times and in her profession in general. The Fox News Politics site repurposed her column (added a few lines) into a story for a "Bias Alert" news column. What's their goal? To warn against trusting the Times and to manipulate readers, not to inform, showing obvious bias. No integrity. No self-awareness. No apologies.
Does this bring to mind a prominent public figure?
3
I am one of the NYT subscribers (25+ years of 7 days/week) that contacted the NYT to inform them that if I can convince my wife to cancel my subscription i will do so in short order. I let them know that in my opinion they no longer print the news. They have become the MSNBC of print.
Their coverage of Trump, HRC and of the election was DISGUSTING by any measure.
Their coverage of Trump, HRC and of the election was DISGUSTING by any measure.
27
The NYT threw everything it had -- and more -- at Trump. The sheer volume of negative stories against his candidacy was unprecedented. The trivial nature of so many pieces crowded out the truly serious ones. It wreaked of desperation. Meanwhile, the coverage of Clinton was more or less fair, and that made the negative stories more damaging to her. Thus, it is not only that the NYT's election coverage was biased and out-of-touch -- it also was incompetent. And now we are told the Times will "rededicate" itself to bias and incompetence. Not surprising. Nothing will change under its current Publisher.
20
Please help me to understand why all of the media outlets were so extremely biased this year and continue to be so by letting the false narrative that Trump voters are racist and so on, continue when your voices could go a long way in clarifying that it simply is not true. As for our borders and immigration if you look back to 2008 when president Obama was running he said the same thing as Trump and he was cheered. How can there be such a double standard? This is the thing I want to know how to explain to my children, they already understand the electoral system. They do not understand the media " voting for Clinton". FYI the bullying of Trump by the media is partially responsible for many of his votes. Thank you
11
Basically because President Elect P Grabber and his immediate coterie are bigots who despise and fear all people of color, view women as useful only a sexual servants, and openly espouse the use of torture and the commission of war crimes. Hard to separate the supprtoer
16
EZPZ. Trump and his supporters ARE racist, sexist deplorables. Yep, you people chose a guy to be the president of the United States, who is not only completely unqualified, but who is gonna grab 'em by the pussy. So embarassing, so tragic.
1
Obviously IIa, you are being less than truthful if you think for a moment that President Obama ever ran on a platform that said whites were demons; Mexicans were "rapists"; mainstream media were liars; that we should have religious limitus tests for immigrants; that any of his campaign rallies were marred with violence or that he cursed at and enourage violence he klers at any of his rallies.
Apart from its loyal followers who view the world through progressive lenses, most people who have read the NYT believe that the NYT heavily slants its news stories to reflect its bias. This is a shame because the NYT has a talented staff and offers interesting stories when it wants to.
12
Stop reporting what people *say* as though it's actual news. I see this everywhere across the entire news media, but what pains me is how susceptible the New York Times is to it.
Reporting what people say distracts us with trivialities and keeps our attention from things that matter, like policy.
Reporting what people say lets people get away with bad behavior merely by talking about something else.
Reporting what people say allows fiction to present as fact simply because someone said it.
Reporting what people say permits news organizations to engage in wanton partisanship, by choosing which quotes to feature above others.
If the election of Donald Trump hasn't already made it clear, people saying things is not newsworthy enough to make us change our opinions about them. Start reporting facts rather than phrases, and maybe the New York Times will earn the right to call itself a newspaper again.
Reporting what people say distracts us with trivialities and keeps our attention from things that matter, like policy.
Reporting what people say lets people get away with bad behavior merely by talking about something else.
Reporting what people say allows fiction to present as fact simply because someone said it.
Reporting what people say permits news organizations to engage in wanton partisanship, by choosing which quotes to feature above others.
If the election of Donald Trump hasn't already made it clear, people saying things is not newsworthy enough to make us change our opinions about them. Start reporting facts rather than phrases, and maybe the New York Times will earn the right to call itself a newspaper again.
17
Or perhaps better: since there were no "facts" or "policies" coming from the president-elect, there was nothing TO report on but what he said. So, what happened to investigative reporting? What happened to asking the tough questions? "What are your plans?" And don't let them off the hook until they provide a reasonable answer. And when they don't, then THAT'S what you report.
I too am an educated woman and voted for Trump. I would have been okay with Clinton but millions of others would not. My vote was for them because I know Trump can bring about the change that is needed. Clinton does not care about them, she is living in a fantasy world like all the celebrities.
15
"...a fantasy world like all the celebrities?"
So you voted for the star of Celebrity Apprentice instead, Christine?
So you voted for the star of Celebrity Apprentice instead, Christine?
18
This is the kind of comment that drives me bonkers. Also, I did not know tha that getting rid of Medicare was the kind of change we needed and lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% and abolishing the Estate Tax. But folks like Christine voted for Trump and any information that shows that might have mistake is just so "unfair."
Trump doesn't live in a fantasy world as a celebrity? Huh?
I am a Times subscriber and will continue as one. My issue with the Times (and with basically all media) is that they simply fail to provide comprehensive, essential factual analysis. The Times was engaged in a sad display of false equivalence and used tired tropes about the candidates and their supporters without providing context, or serious analysis. Maybe readers don't want serious coverage of serious issues. That being said, even with the Times shortcomings, it is far superior to just about everything else. The Times should be the one outlet that calls out illogical arguments, like the one propounded in this article by Horst Gudemann that judging Trump supported by the extreme ideas of other Trump supporters is the same as judging the organization Black Lives Matters by its "extreme supporters" (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself). Trump supporters are not judged based on their similarity to other Trump supporters, but are judged based on their vote for Trump and the things he has actually said he stands for and for his public behavior during the election. Black Lives Matters has publicly stated organizing principles and does not espouse violence or hatred and denounces violence and hatred. A person who commits a violent act in proximity to a peaceful protest cannot logically be said to be supporter of a non-violent philosophy, any more than someone who takes the opportunity to commit a crime at a sporting event can be said to represent the team.
10
The NYT gave up all pretense of journalism in order to front one candidate. All that effort and you lost...not only the election but your reputation. Were it not for your food section, I would leave your paper for good. Still thinking about it.
14
Ironic that they "fronted" Clinton but gave the election to Trump, isn't it? Some of us look at actions, not words.
Thanks. But is there any chance that Times journalists will read this too? And what about Gail Collins, Nicholas Kristof and the other opinion writers? I am sure that they are great friends, but as readers we prefer opinion writers with something unique to say.
6
I love the New York Times (of yesteryear). The coverage of the elections gradually became almost strident in its distasteful transformation to a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump hysteria. Having won the election, Trump is still portrayed, in almost silly headlines, as a buffoon.
The Times is now the subject of ridicule in many circles.
What a shame!
And, yes, I cancelled my subscription!
The Times is now the subject of ridicule in many circles.
What a shame!
And, yes, I cancelled my subscription!
15
"Trump is still portrayed, in almost silly headlines, as a buffoon."
Has it occurred to you that there may be a very good reason for that? Consider that a preponderance of evidence shows that he is indeed a buffoon.
Has it occurred to you that there may be a very good reason for that? Consider that a preponderance of evidence shows that he is indeed a buffoon.
1
Well, it is hard not to portray him any other way when he insists on acting like a buffoon. See his twitter comments on Hamilton and Saturday Night Live.
It's time to eliminate the opinions sections from this paper. Andrew Rosenthal has created an echo-chamber of obnoxious, condescending liberal attitudes, and he is given a prominent place on the web page (upper right corner) which increases his visibility.
Please spin off the opinions and "the upshot" into a separate publication, and then leave the rest of the paper for news stories. Then readers would have the option of only purchasing the news, and they would no longer have to provide financial support to sections that are not worth it.
Please spin off the opinions and "the upshot" into a separate publication, and then leave the rest of the paper for news stories. Then readers would have the option of only purchasing the news, and they would no longer have to provide financial support to sections that are not worth it.
6
Have been a NYT subscriber for 23 years I canceled my subscription and hope many other conservatives do the same.
6
I fear the NY Times is not up to the challenge of dealing with a Trump presidency. How do you report on someone who lies all the time? If the Times tries to set the record straight every time Donald Trump tells a lie, the paper will be accused of partisanship. How will 20th century journalism deal with 21st century politics? Very weakly, I'm afraid.
15
I'd love to hear more data about all these complaints given how one-sided the response is here (almost entirely giving voice to the conservative complaints over what I imagine are numerous complaints from the left side of the spectrum).
Are all of them paying NYT subscribers? Did they point to specific articles or facts that they took issue with? Or, was this just a broad brushstroke conflating the core News division and the Editorial section (which is understandably liberal just as the WSJ editorial section is understandably conservative)?
Here's a consideration....perhaps Trump received lots of negative coverage because he was an extremely controversial nominee with all sorts of problematic issues to sort through? I don't feel the need to name all of those issues, but here's a very simple one: he objectively lied almost constantly throughout the campaign.
I'm all for NYT covering the core issues that voters and citizens throughout the country are dealing with and doing so objectively with facts. By all means, go to North Carolina and ask questions. Report people's concerns. But, please do not come away from this election thinking that you need to lean more conservative in your coverage. Lean towards facts and objective reporting, and away from sensationalism and innuendo.
Are all of them paying NYT subscribers? Did they point to specific articles or facts that they took issue with? Or, was this just a broad brushstroke conflating the core News division and the Editorial section (which is understandably liberal just as the WSJ editorial section is understandably conservative)?
Here's a consideration....perhaps Trump received lots of negative coverage because he was an extremely controversial nominee with all sorts of problematic issues to sort through? I don't feel the need to name all of those issues, but here's a very simple one: he objectively lied almost constantly throughout the campaign.
I'm all for NYT covering the core issues that voters and citizens throughout the country are dealing with and doing so objectively with facts. By all means, go to North Carolina and ask questions. Report people's concerns. But, please do not come away from this election thinking that you need to lean more conservative in your coverage. Lean towards facts and objective reporting, and away from sensationalism and innuendo.
13
Agreed. Let the facts speak for themselves, and if the president-elect continues to lie to the public, the NY Times needs to counter with facts and truth. It may draw criticism from people who expect the paper to somehow go easy with the president-elect and his administration, just because.
If one thing is tweeted by our president-elect and the facts demonstrate otherwise, report it. The onus for not being straight with the public is on the president-elect, who should be telling the truth, not on the newspaper when it does.
So, dear NY Times, please do report facts and events truthfully, regardless. Thanks in advance!
If one thing is tweeted by our president-elect and the facts demonstrate otherwise, report it. The onus for not being straight with the public is on the president-elect, who should be telling the truth, not on the newspaper when it does.
So, dear NY Times, please do report facts and events truthfully, regardless. Thanks in advance!
I am the poster child for diversity - my number 2 person was a black gay Jamaican, my staff includes 60% women, among whom are Haitians, Chinese, Blacks, latinas and probably others as well. My directs are 75% women and all have been promoted at some time on my recommendation. Yet I find myself characterized by the NYT as a racist because I support Donald Trump. The shallowness of the Times' analysis and biased reporting is offensive as she used to be the gold standard of reporting - and still has many magnificent writers on staff. Unfortunately, the relentless slanting of the quote unquote "news"on P1 and beyond have made the NYT unreadable to students of serious journalism. In a nutshell, the Times can no longer be trusted. I always advise my staff never to lie because credibility once lost is almost impossible to regain. I fear that the editors and owners have squandered and betrayed the legacy of the Times as the paper of record.
8
Just curious you state " I always advise my staff never to lie because credibility once lost is almost impossible to regain' I agree which is why it's mystifying and disheartening to find out who support and voted for a pathological liar to be president of the United Stated who was caught in countless (almost daily) lies during the campaign, The list is really quite extensive. No the statement is not an opinion nor is it bias any way but merely a statement of fact. It wouldn't take much research (outside of truly bias sources) to find what I say is actually true. How then does Donald Trump still have credibility with you?
1
You're the "poster child for diversity," Greg? I wonder what your Haitian, Chinese, Black, Latina" and "probably others" would say about you if they knew that you voted for the racist Donald Trump.
Would they agree that you're the "poster child" for the diversity that they represent? I'm guessing they wouldn't.
Or better yet, Greg, why not tell them whom you voted for, and ask them for their candid opinion of your decision? I'm guessing that you won't, because you know what they'll tell you.
Would they agree that you're the "poster child" for the diversity that they represent? I'm guessing they wouldn't.
Or better yet, Greg, why not tell them whom you voted for, and ask them for their candid opinion of your decision? I'm guessing that you won't, because you know what they'll tell you.
1
You voted for a racist, sexist, self-admitted sexual predator, so what does that make you?
“The customer is always right,” is a bad adage for a responsible newspaper. Ms. Spayd gives testimony that many people are complaining about the coverage because they think it was biased against Trump and/or because wrong about his prospects. But there is very little evidence that either is so.
As noted, the Times repeatedly printed articles profiling voters across the country, including those supporting or considering Trump. The portrait they painted of economic concerns, cultural change, anger at elites, doubts about both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, growing divides around education, church-going, and urban-rural populations, etc. were all amply borne out by the election itself.
With all due respect to the ladies from North Carolina, Mr. Trump's campaign did use racial, sexist, and nativist appeals to woo voters in a manner not seen by a major party nominee in a long, long time. That doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for him was motivated by that – and if you read the Times coverage you knew they weren’t – but it remains perhaps the biggest news out of the election. “Nominee says same old stuff” is not news of the same worth or category.
As to predictions: one in six are not long odds and one in ten happens everyday; just because Trump won doesn’t mean the odds were wrong.
The Times should review their election coverage of course, but deciding it was biased or blind based on the election outcome is just rubbish reasoning.
As noted, the Times repeatedly printed articles profiling voters across the country, including those supporting or considering Trump. The portrait they painted of economic concerns, cultural change, anger at elites, doubts about both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, growing divides around education, church-going, and urban-rural populations, etc. were all amply borne out by the election itself.
With all due respect to the ladies from North Carolina, Mr. Trump's campaign did use racial, sexist, and nativist appeals to woo voters in a manner not seen by a major party nominee in a long, long time. That doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for him was motivated by that – and if you read the Times coverage you knew they weren’t – but it remains perhaps the biggest news out of the election. “Nominee says same old stuff” is not news of the same worth or category.
As to predictions: one in six are not long odds and one in ten happens everyday; just because Trump won doesn’t mean the odds were wrong.
The Times should review their election coverage of course, but deciding it was biased or blind based on the election outcome is just rubbish reasoning.
8
The NY Times and the Washington Post might as well have been on the Clinton payroll, so much bias I stopped even glancing at their headlines. They represent everything the winning voters hated, sham journalism.
6
I think that what this article is trying to say is that it wishes the NY Times had done more to understand what motivated voters in this election - had it done so it may have done a better job predicting the outcome. Instead, however, the letter sounds as if it is apologizing for a liberal bias in the NY Times news coverage that never actually existed. Trump should not be normalized. We live in dangerous times and I am glad that the NY Times, so far, is standing up to the President-elect.
As to your group of Trump-voting readers: I come from Germany where many in my grandparents' generation similarly defended their behavior in Nazi Germany. They said that they never had a problem with Jewish people, that they were caring people, and that they did not participate in any atrocities themselves. Yet I think Germany and the rest of the world agree that these "innocent" bystanders did play a role in allowing the Nazi regime to succeed. Had they spoken and voted their conscience when Hitler was still a mere loud-mouthed agitator, history may have taken a very different course. There is no doubt that many Germans at the time suffered tremendous economic hardships and were desperate for help. I don't doubt that the same is true for many Americans today. But I don't think that such hardships excuse anti-Semitism, racism or misogyny.
As to your group of Trump-voting readers: I come from Germany where many in my grandparents' generation similarly defended their behavior in Nazi Germany. They said that they never had a problem with Jewish people, that they were caring people, and that they did not participate in any atrocities themselves. Yet I think Germany and the rest of the world agree that these "innocent" bystanders did play a role in allowing the Nazi regime to succeed. Had they spoken and voted their conscience when Hitler was still a mere loud-mouthed agitator, history may have taken a very different course. There is no doubt that many Germans at the time suffered tremendous economic hardships and were desperate for help. I don't doubt that the same is true for many Americans today. But I don't think that such hardships excuse anti-Semitism, racism or misogyny.
18
Now this is a news story. We are operating in a deluded state when we normalize the hateful rhetoric of the transition administration and the voters who support it. Citing a group of women in NC who are upset that they are suddenly exposed for their beliefs is absurd. If they truly feel as if their vote was right they should be proud. Therein lies the problem though. There will come a point when many people who voted against equality and progress will see the underbelly of the quick fix scheme that they bought at the expense of so many. Hopefully they will be brave enough then to speak out. But I fear that their pride will get the best of them and they will remain silent like the people mentioned in the comment above.
Intelligent women who voted for Trump is an oxymoron. Intelligence means, not only the ability to learn, but the ability to apply that knowledge. We knew exactly who he was prior to 11.8 and people chose to ignore the truth. For those who claim that they support his "policies" are denying the reality of his ideology and are complicit to his actions.
The NYT presented facts, albeit with the tilt of modernity, in well thought out, carefully researched articles. I commend all of the reporters for their coverage. They called the election wrong, along with most of our country; not being aware of the depth of the ugliness in our society was complacency to be sure. I am a new subscriber who values news organizations that uphold the 1st and will not be intimidated.
Intelligent women who voted for Trump is an oxymoron. Intelligence means, not only the ability to learn, but the ability to apply that knowledge. We knew exactly who he was prior to 11.8 and people chose to ignore the truth. For those who claim that they support his "policies" are denying the reality of his ideology and are complicit to his actions.
The NYT presented facts, albeit with the tilt of modernity, in well thought out, carefully researched articles. I commend all of the reporters for their coverage. They called the election wrong, along with most of our country; not being aware of the depth of the ugliness in our society was complacency to be sure. I am a new subscriber who values news organizations that uphold the 1st and will not be intimidated.
1
When a news organisation - one either side of the political aisle - pushes for on candidate over another, you can be sure that you are not only being fed only what they want you to see, but also fake news. The NYT is as guilty of this as any right-wing media organisation out there.
7
I grew up with the NYT, and used to finish the Sunday crossword puzzle almost every week. I would relish poring over the piles of papers with unread articles on slow weekend days.
This rag has gotten so tendentiously liberal and predictable, not to say annoyingly pedantic, that I've stopped reading it.
I don't even click on links to your articles on the internet (this is the first time in years).
Return to (more or less) real journalism, even if you preserve your liberal slant, and you may get some of us back.
I'm not holding my breath.
This rag has gotten so tendentiously liberal and predictable, not to say annoyingly pedantic, that I've stopped reading it.
I don't even click on links to your articles on the internet (this is the first time in years).
Return to (more or less) real journalism, even if you preserve your liberal slant, and you may get some of us back.
I'm not holding my breath.
5
This article was so right leaning and its title so miseleading, I thought I wandered onto the pages of Breitbart! We need to stop normalizing Trump, the campaign he ran, and his present actions and behavior as president-elect! Ignoring the truth and playing the devil's advocate too much is so dangerous, as the outcome of this election proves! Stay honest, NYT, and hope it keeps the rest of the MSM honest too!
9
There are no 100% good guys or bad guys in politics. The truth is much more nuanced, and the Times is missing it completely with its slanted, partisan views. Just look at the stories, almost every single one has a negative take on Trump. I’ve never liked “hit pieces”, and in this election the Times took it to a whole new level.
There are reasoned critiques to be made of Trump, but just calling everyone he deals with racist, or focusing on his fringe supporters is a waste of time and effort. I’m sure there are radical Muslims who like President Obama – does that imply he’s a radical Muslim too?
With its relentlessly negative, one note portraits of Trump the Times is pandering to its liberal readers – and dumbing down any coverage of real news.
There are reasoned critiques to be made of Trump, but just calling everyone he deals with racist, or focusing on his fringe supporters is a waste of time and effort. I’m sure there are radical Muslims who like President Obama – does that imply he’s a radical Muslim too?
With its relentlessly negative, one note portraits of Trump the Times is pandering to its liberal readers – and dumbing down any coverage of real news.
4
Stuff that leaves me just gobsmacked. "’m sure there are radical Muslims who like President Obama – does that imply he’s a radical Muslim too?"
Only in the fevered imaginations of Sean Hannity, Frank Gaffney, and Steve Bannon.
If you want find out how Sunni Extremists feel about President Obama (they hate him), you should check out news sources like Al Jazeera and the Economist.
Only in the fevered imaginations of Sean Hannity, Frank Gaffney, and Steve Bannon.
If you want find out how Sunni Extremists feel about President Obama (they hate him), you should check out news sources like Al Jazeera and the Economist.
sherparik, I assumed she was exaggerating to make a point, not to be taken seriously. I got her point. Such as, we can probably find a golden retriever who likes Obama, does that mean that all Obama supporters are golden retrievers? (No, obviously it does not mean that.)
It seems that liberals and centrists have completely different communication styles and speak past each other!
It seems that liberals and centrists have completely different communication styles and speak past each other!
It is wonderful to read that, somewhere within the NY Times, there is a smidgen of self-awareness. But it is just a smidgen.
It requires some action.
This would start with clearing out 30% (an even-steven 50% is too much to hope for) of the opinion writers. It should be half - from a fairness perspective.
Maybe the fairness could be phased in, as it might be too much of a transition for the Editorial Board to handle.
It requires some action.
This would start with clearing out 30% (an even-steven 50% is too much to hope for) of the opinion writers. It should be half - from a fairness perspective.
Maybe the fairness could be phased in, as it might be too much of a transition for the Editorial Board to handle.
3
I've always wondered why newspapers print editorials in the first place. If the purpose of a newspaper is to report news, why then do they feel obligated to editorialize? Why does a newspaper endorse political candidates? When a newspaper editorializes and endorses candidates, it has moved away from reporting and into manipulating. Newspapers today feel as if they are merely megaphones for editorial boards.
Perhaps The Times, and other papers, could reduce the amount of criticism directed toward them and increase the confidence of readers by eliminating editorials and endorsements and stick to providing solid, well-researched information. As soon as you print an editorial, or candidate endorsement, you have likely inflamed half your audience. If you would stop insulting readers by telling us what we should think, you might reduce accusations of bias and liberalism.
Perhaps The Times, and other papers, could reduce the amount of criticism directed toward them and increase the confidence of readers by eliminating editorials and endorsements and stick to providing solid, well-researched information. As soon as you print an editorial, or candidate endorsement, you have likely inflamed half your audience. If you would stop insulting readers by telling us what we should think, you might reduce accusations of bias and liberalism.
4
NOT BETTER just unbiased and honest, meaning facts only not half truths!
1
Once again Ms. Spayd manages to find the barking conservatives who have been complaining about "liberal bias" at the Times for 40 years and not a single complaint about the email stories which occupied so much front page real estate. Or on the Times paying a Republican operative to excerpt his attack book on the Clinton Foundation on the front page. As for those women in Charlotte, they may not consider themselves homophobic, anti-muslim or racist, but their actions support those things so there isn't much difference.
10
Not "better" coverage, how about ACCURATE coverage?!?!?!?
4
The TImes' campaign coverage was an abysmal mess. I raised my eyebrow more than a few times wondering whether the articles were indeed journalism or propaganda for the elite agenda. Then again, this is what happens when you have an editor-driven newspaper who mold reporters to fit the narrative. Surely there must be a few "Woodward and Bernsteins" still left that could take the helm.
7
For years, the Times has failed to present the news objectively. In virtually ever area of public life (politics, foreign relations, Israel, race relations), their reporting has been slanted to fit their point of view and preferred narrative. This is precisely why I have cancelled my subscription.
5
Please stop with the popular vote versus the Electoral College. Clinton chose which states to pursue based on electoral votes not popular votes. She chose poorly. Trump did the same and revisited states Clinton chose to ignore in the late days (and according to numerous articles -- had been asked repeatedly by Bill Clinton to visit.) The world DOES NOT revolve around the "great metropolis of NYC or LA or Chicago." That got her the "popular vote." Take a look at the County map the NYTimes published. Realize there is a whole WORLD of good, honest, hard working Americans in between those "GLEEMING BASTIONS of ALL INCLUSIVE (excluding us)"
7
The ONLY way for the NYT to gain any credibility is to clean house. The house cleaning must start at the top. The top created the current NYT looney left supporting environment. They have to bring in respected people on both sides. The NYT has proven they are not a real newspaper and the "reporters" there are dem/lib tools.
I would hope Trump would take away any WH press credentials or WH access until changes are made. Nobody is saying you can not criticize Trump but you have to be just as tough on both sides. If any main stream "reporters" had been tough on billary she would never have made it through the dem primaries.
I would hope Trump would take away any WH press credentials or WH access until changes are made. Nobody is saying you can not criticize Trump but you have to be just as tough on both sides. If any main stream "reporters" had been tough on billary she would never have made it through the dem primaries.
7
This is a question for people who believe that most Trump supporters are racist:
1) Why did so many people in the Midwest and Rust Belt who voted for Obama before, now voted for Trump?
Did they become racist for this election? Or does voting for a black man does not rule out that you are a racist?
2) Why did Trump win much higher percent of Hispanic, Asian, and African-American votes than Romney, and only 1% more white votes?
Are these minorities racist as well?
1) Why did so many people in the Midwest and Rust Belt who voted for Obama before, now voted for Trump?
Did they become racist for this election? Or does voting for a black man does not rule out that you are a racist?
2) Why did Trump win much higher percent of Hispanic, Asian, and African-American votes than Romney, and only 1% more white votes?
Are these minorities racist as well?
6
Yes, voters can be racist (or misogynist) and vote for both Obama and Trump.
Actually, Trump got 1% less of the total white electorate then Mitt Romney (58% v. 59%). Trump's campaign emphasis on trade and NAFTA the last few weeks did help him. And I think the meme of Clinton as crooked and lying, which the NY Times did much to promote help.
Also, the Times, which except for an occasional column by Paul Krugman, constantly cheerleads for neoliberal globalization and trade deals, really did appear blind sided by the anger in much of the country which have expreienced close to 35 years of decline, and were disappointed by the slow economic recovery under Obama. http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/15/on-the-national-and-international-ca...
Many white Americans voted for Trump who are not racists or misogynists, but they decided to tolerate the racism and misogyny to vote for "change." And it is a privilege of their whiteness that they will not be challenged in regard to their civil and voting rights the next 4 years.
Actually, Trump got 1% less of the total white electorate then Mitt Romney (58% v. 59%). Trump's campaign emphasis on trade and NAFTA the last few weeks did help him. And I think the meme of Clinton as crooked and lying, which the NY Times did much to promote help.
Also, the Times, which except for an occasional column by Paul Krugman, constantly cheerleads for neoliberal globalization and trade deals, really did appear blind sided by the anger in much of the country which have expreienced close to 35 years of decline, and were disappointed by the slow economic recovery under Obama. http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/15/on-the-national-and-international-ca...
Many white Americans voted for Trump who are not racists or misogynists, but they decided to tolerate the racism and misogyny to vote for "change." And it is a privilege of their whiteness that they will not be challenged in regard to their civil and voting rights the next 4 years.
One need look no further than the "Editor Picks" tab of the comment sections. A conservative viewpoint is so rarely selected that one wonders if the Times isn't attempting to "protect" its readers from any opposing viewpoint.
4
Jeff Patterson: There is nothing "conservative" about Trump, Pence, Bannon and the rest of this ugly cabal, representing the worst of humanity: hate of their fellow men (and women): racism, greed, misogyny, duplicity, slander, etc. They are radicals with an unholy lust for authoritarian power and control.
On the one hand, real conservatives push for traditional values, and conserving/ preserving the best of the institutions of governance and social behavior which have been built over long periods of time . Read the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, Trump and crew are out to tear down and destroy.....and then what.??? You've been conned.
On the one hand, real conservatives push for traditional values, and conserving/ preserving the best of the institutions of governance and social behavior which have been built over long periods of time . Read the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, Trump and crew are out to tear down and destroy.....and then what.??? You've been conned.
I can always watch Fox or read the Washington Examiner and Washington Times for an opposing view.
I hope you will meet with those voters in Charlotte, NC to find out why they did vote for Trump, and to see if they feel at all concerned for the people who will see their civil and human rights reduced by Trump's polices. Do they believe Trump's promises to bring all the jobs back, build a wall, cut taxes and increase the military spending, all while reducing the debt? If not, why would they vote for a candidate who makes promises that clearly cannot be fulfilled? I'm afraid the Trump voters want the freedom to harm others without the responsibility. They can't blame the NYTimes for what they've done to this country.
11
I am a Hispanic, voted and supported Donald J Trump since early during the primaries. I read was dismay some of the negative articles that the Times published against Donald J Trump and how they moved their needle towards Hillary. Now after the election, I see that President-elect Trump is trying to unite all Americans that were for him or against him. However, I am not Donald J. Trump and I stopped reading the Times and further I do not trust the Times and their left wing Liberal bias. Maybe the Governor of New York or the Mayor of NYC will buy your paper, not me.
5
How is Donald Trump "trying to unite all Americans"? This smells like a paid troll post.
How about better coverage of what's happening now? Or is the Times too afraid of offending bigots in South Carolina? The fact that Trump had to spend $25M dollars to settle the racketeering charges over Trump university barely made the bottom of the front page for one day.
Trump is already using his position to extort money for his business's from Argentina:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina
For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.
According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project.
Trump is already using his position to extort money for his business's from Argentina:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina
For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.
According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project.
9
And now it starts. The so-called voice of impartial reason has tagged the NYT with being too hard on Trump supporters. My God. Was Ms. Spayd absent for her history classes of creeping fascism, intolerance, and xenophobia?? She worries that the Times has been too tough?
Listen, Ms. Spayd. When people--or publications--stand idly by while others in their society are mocked, tormented, and marginalized, they are, by definition, cowards and unworthy of respect. You should have learned that in grade school. Perhaps the fact that you--and apparently millions of others--didn't is why we're in the mess we're in now.
Listen, Ms. Spayd. When people--or publications--stand idly by while others in their society are mocked, tormented, and marginalized, they are, by definition, cowards and unworthy of respect. You should have learned that in grade school. Perhaps the fact that you--and apparently millions of others--didn't is why we're in the mess we're in now.
14
Looks like the Times did not learn anything just like the Democrats, they still think they know what's best for us deplorables.
4
The New York Times got caught doing a Victory lap on the Titanic. A news outlet gets to report news but not to try and make it by being an advertisement for one candidate over another. The Times is quickly becoming everything liberals hate about FOX news.
4
Ms. Spayd, reading many of the comments here, I imagine you recognize the fruits of your editorial board, reporters and staff's labor. You have succeeded in demonizing anyone/everyone who disagrees with you ideology. You have played an important part in dividing America.
As a result, most people who have a different political opinion keep that to themselves - but they did vote. And Trump, as a result, won.
So now you believe the NYT should be more balanced? Recognize that your core liberal readers will have none of that. Recognize that the middle of America has dismissed the elite liberalism of the coasts, as a result.
The democrats have lost the White House, the Senate, the House, most governorships and most state legislatures.
Still, today, just about every headline and opinion piece is anti-Trump.
Keep it up - that bias has motivated the conservative base and will continue to do so.
As a result, most people who have a different political opinion keep that to themselves - but they did vote. And Trump, as a result, won.
So now you believe the NYT should be more balanced? Recognize that your core liberal readers will have none of that. Recognize that the middle of America has dismissed the elite liberalism of the coasts, as a result.
The democrats have lost the White House, the Senate, the House, most governorships and most state legislatures.
Still, today, just about every headline and opinion piece is anti-Trump.
Keep it up - that bias has motivated the conservative base and will continue to do so.
4
As I expressed once before the election in a comment that never got published, it would be better to let people express how they feel if for no other reason than to help them come to other conclusions, if that is your desire.
For example, I once stated I found Trump partially correct on NATO and was rudely silenced (called racist with much the slant people here use, that one can defend nothing he says without also accepting his racism.)
Well, anyway, I still don't know if I'm right about NATO, because people shut me up. Multiply that by everyone who thought he said some things that partially made sense.
For example, I once stated I found Trump partially correct on NATO and was rudely silenced (called racist with much the slant people here use, that one can defend nothing he says without also accepting his racism.)
Well, anyway, I still don't know if I'm right about NATO, because people shut me up. Multiply that by everyone who thought he said some things that partially made sense.
1
Most interesting, Ms. Spayd, is that you echo the reader's comments but offer no apology from the Times nor admit yourself that is a problem at the Times. Only, "I wish they could hear," etc. This in itself is a reflection of the Times, and its editorial staff, who will not take any blame nor admit any mistake.
4
From what I can glean, she isn't the Times, she can't speak for them or apologize on their behalf.
Within days of the election The Times ran one of its numerous critical daily front-page stories on Trump. In it was information pertaining to the fact that Trump had had a model made showing his tower to be taller than the nearby GM building. That should be enough said. Coverage of the election by The Times set the lowest ever, though it set it pretty low in covering Romney as a latter day robber baron. A friend who publishes numerous successful business publications--and who voted for HRC--said it simply: The Times has become the Onion.
20
I disagree. The Onion is at least funny.
6
"The Times has become the Onion." This demeans the Onion, known for its sarcasm and wit. The Times cannot lay claim to either.
5
Thank you! I have been begging the NYT for months to stop painting Trump and his supporters with a brush wide enough to encompass every fringe hate group in the country. Coverage is all about balance and yes Trump deserved to be called out but the objectivity required of good journalism just wasn't there. For every stupid remark he made that was blown completely out of scale, you could have mentioned the good things this man has done. The NYT is a big part of the reason our children are panicked in the streets. Why don't you report on Trump opening his club in Florida to the all citizens regardless of color or sexual orientation? Or the awards from the NAACP? You couldn't because your bias demanded a false narrative and our country is the worse for it. I truly hope you listen up NYT. The working class is all colors, religions and sexual orientations and we have had ENOUGH.
27
For the record, from the NAACP.
http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-statement-president-elect-trump-select...
http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-statement-president-elect-trump-select...
2
They can't do it. The NYT is captured it akin to Stockholm Syndrome. The Grey Lady is now only a shell of what she was in the past.
R.I.P. to the golden era of the NY Times - it committed suicide.
R.I.P. to the golden era of the NY Times - it committed suicide.
2
Liberals know nothing about fairness and balance when dealing with those they do not agree with. In actual fact, sowing divisiveness is their most potent weapon in political wrangling - "to he!! with the facts, we have a candidate to elect!"
1
You apologized to voters for assuming they agreed with the positions of the candidate they supported? I'm thinking about canceling my subscription.
8
Which of his positions is not to be supported? That he wants to deport illegal criminal aliens, such as the man who killed Kate Steinle, and why are we wrong to support that. You and others just don't get it.
3
You're thinking about it???
There should be an obituary published in many of the Nations papers. It should read something to the effect that journalism passed away after a long illness. After many years of reporting all sides of an issue, opinion is now the only thing that matters. After all, we the press know what is best for you.
23
Exactly. The NYT committed suicide. What a sin for a heralded institution such as the NYT to sell out. The management and staff of the NYT were captured by
certain folks and institutions - it's the Stockholm Syndrome coupled with favors, influence and propaganda.
Don't every underestimate the power of denial. NYT you are looking at it straight away in the mirror.
certain folks and institutions - it's the Stockholm Syndrome coupled with favors, influence and propaganda.
Don't every underestimate the power of denial. NYT you are looking at it straight away in the mirror.
3
Suggestion: Do a story on what racism IS, instead of simply asking white people if they believe they're racist. Steve Bannon doesn't believe he's racist and I'll bet that David Duke has some other name for it now that he's all re-branded.
I suggest talking to people of color about how they experience racism--then listen to the answers--and talk about the spectrum of racism (hint: they don't all wear white hoods or even know they're behaving in a racist manner) and about unconscious and institutional racism that even those with good intentions participate in.
Also, I don't need to hear that someone has had a successful career or is well educated before you tell me they are or aren't racist. Same issue with the emphasis on Bannon's Ivy League degree. The idea that there are no racists in the higher echelons of society is preposterous and,I believe, contributed to people feeling just hunky dory about voting for Trump.
I suggest talking to people of color about how they experience racism--then listen to the answers--and talk about the spectrum of racism (hint: they don't all wear white hoods or even know they're behaving in a racist manner) and about unconscious and institutional racism that even those with good intentions participate in.
Also, I don't need to hear that someone has had a successful career or is well educated before you tell me they are or aren't racist. Same issue with the emphasis on Bannon's Ivy League degree. The idea that there are no racists in the higher echelons of society is preposterous and,I believe, contributed to people feeling just hunky dory about voting for Trump.
26
Is NAACP & The United Negro College Fund, To which I donated, racist?
Is the DNC racist because they were complicit in keeping Bernie from achieving what Hill couldn't? A jew and independent?
What they did to Bernie is wrong - it is bias plan and simple.
What they did to Bernie is wrong - it is bias plan and simple.
3
"Steve Bannon doesn't believe he's racist and I'll bet that David Duke has some other name for it now that he's all re-branded. "
Ask the same of Jackson,, Rev. Wright, Kayne West, Sharpton, and Obama (among many black celebrities), and you will also get an answer from them that they are in no way racist.
Ask the same of Jackson,, Rev. Wright, Kayne West, Sharpton, and Obama (among many black celebrities), and you will also get an answer from them that they are in no way racist.
2
An example of how coverage of Trump, pre- and post- election has played out: Trump tweets about Hamilton; front page coverage of tweet; no coverage of $25 mil fraud settlement. Trump has led and you've let him lead. Will he so easily distract media coverage with his seemingly erratic tweets? I think they're calculated. Please quit covering this con man's tweets and lead the conversation. What's good for selling the papers (covering Trump as if he was still a TV personality) is not good for America. It's this paper's job to lead.
10
A group of white women wrote to a white woman to show they're not racist. What is wrong with this picture?
8
would their message be any more valid if it was black women writing to a black woman? racism, sexism, these exist when you discount what the person has to say. not because of what they are saying, but because of their color or gender.
11
Absolutely nothing.
7
They should have complained to a black guy at a different newspaper?
1
I peruse the major Sections of the Times only to take the temperature of what's mainstreaming in the LEFT.
The once gold-standard of journalism expressed by the NYT of the past is deceased. I doubt there will be any reincarnation.
However, I still enjoy the Real Estate, Travel, Living, Food and some other ancillary Sections. Good thing that a left-leaning bias doesn't impact those types of stories.
NYT you should be ashamed of yourself.
The once gold-standard of journalism expressed by the NYT of the past is deceased. I doubt there will be any reincarnation.
However, I still enjoy the Real Estate, Travel, Living, Food and some other ancillary Sections. Good thing that a left-leaning bias doesn't impact those types of stories.
NYT you should be ashamed of yourself.
18
This 'letter' shows once again that the NYT just does not get it.
16
In this election the focus of the NYT was on scandals and the horserace and pushing a candidate. While she was indeed the better candidate (in my opinion) the push-push-push was so hard that it may well have aided in her defeat. My perception was that actual issues were rarely discussed forthrightly. Face it, many people date the onset of their biggest problems to eras associated with the names of Clinton and Bush. In the NYT, I saw little real discussion of NAFTA (signed by one Bill Clinton), the impact of the repeal of Glass-Steagall (repeal signed by Bill Clinton), the impact of the housing collapse (result of Clinton and Bush era deregulation), the costs of Obamacare, the fact that the people bailed out the banks while the bankers got off with a slap. The NYT has not confronted these things honestly or reminded people of how these things evolved. Why? Is it the nature of its readership? (Wall Street being in New York.) There were a lot of elephants in the room that the NYT was trying to ignore. That opened the door and the alt-right crowd walked through it. Now we are in very serious trouble.
13
Or how about HRC's numerous public and blatant lies, her entire staff taking the Fifth, Bill's secret meeting with the AG, the extraordinary deferential treatment given to her by the FBI, the special treatment she gave Clinton Foundation donors while SOS. . .while liberals are outraged over some of Trump's outrageous rhetoric there seems to have been no concern about what by all appearances looked like the definition of corruption.
3
By pushing trumps"scandals and nothing for the hildabeast did nothing to help the badly flawed democrat party"s choice of candidates!
2
I am quite disappointed in the apparent gullibility of Ms. Spayd regarding the "Capwell crowd." Gee, we're not racist, etc. The NYTimes owes us an apology for lumping us in with the actual racists. I'm sorry, Ms. Capwell (and Ms. Spayd, too), it really does not matter what we call you - or what you call yourselves. If you vote to elect a racist, then ... that's much more significant than labels. It's more significant than how you like to think of yourselves. Regardless of your motivation, your votes enabled Bannon, Sessions, Flynn. If you do not support their policy views, shame on you for not understanding the consequences of your vote. If you do support these policies, shame on you for being racist - and pretending you're not.
17
And yet you don't realize how elitist you are, Scott. Good thing most of America disagrees with your lame assessment.
2
Dude, get out of the echo chamber that is the DC-Philly-NY-Boston corridor and learn something about your fellow Americans that live in flyover country. Many of us did not vote for Trump (I voted Libertarian), but we sure voted against Clinton. It is so obvious that the NE elites think we're a bunch of hayseed hicks and rubes that need to be told what is best for us.
Newsflash- there are still more of "us" than there are of "you". Insulting us and denigrating us is NOT going to earn you our undying loyalty, affection and votes. One more thing- if conservative Americans are wrong for characterizing all Muslims as terrorists, BLM protestors as thugs, etc, then why are liberal Americans not wrong for characterizing all Trump voters as racists and misogynists?
Newsflash- there are still more of "us" than there are of "you". Insulting us and denigrating us is NOT going to earn you our undying loyalty, affection and votes. One more thing- if conservative Americans are wrong for characterizing all Muslims as terrorists, BLM protestors as thugs, etc, then why are liberal Americans not wrong for characterizing all Trump voters as racists and misogynists?
4
A rare and necessary self-assessment of the NYT's bias. It continues in today's headline calling Trump's vetting process for appointments a "spectacle". Huh? Rereading "1984" a few weeks ago reminded me of the danger of media in furtherance of agenda.
But for the crossword puzzles I would cancel my subscription.
But for the crossword puzzles I would cancel my subscription.
15
Yes, while the WSJ headline was "Trump Team Hones Focus on Key Jobs. Despite denials The Times knows exactly what it is doing and accepts the role of propaganda outlet for the Left.
2
I religiously read the NYT everyday years ago.
She needs to go to the glue factory as she is now lame like and old and decrepit horse.
Farewell.
She needs to go to the glue factory as she is now lame like and old and decrepit horse.
Farewell.
3
In all the soul-searching about more even-handed coverage, where is any analysis of the extremely negative coverage Clinton got the entire election? Love her or hate her, did the email server really warrant more front page articles than Trump's millions of conflicts of interest? I hope that the Times doesn't take the call to fairness as a mandate to move all negative Trump stories to page 20.
20
Yes, lying, both to the public, ignoring a demand by congress to retain records, destroying 10s of thousands of public records, having numerous staff members take the Fifth Amendment rather than offer testimony, leaving unexplained dozens of meetings with Clinton Foundation donors with people, countries and entities seeking favorable treatment, having an ex president meet privately with the AG while his spouse is under investigation. . .yes, far more serious and warranting much more, much deeper coverage.
1
As you know, the Republicans and the FBI don't actually think there were any crimes -- they couldn't drop the investigation fast enough once the election was over and Trump won. Just like they knew there were no crimes at Benghazi and yet had a dozen different investigations and planned for more until they decided the e-mails were getting more traction with the media. It was all hoax to convince gullible voters like yourself that she was the criminal instead of Trump and you fell for it. There are suckers born every day. Did you even notice that they promised to get to the bottom of Benghazi, but dropped it as soon as the e-mails seemed to fool voters like yourself more?
Funny how this crime isn't even serious enough for the FBI to pursue once their chosen candidate won. PT Barnum would be proud. I guess it wasn't really serious at all, was it? You really think the FBI would drop investigating real crimes? You think Congress would stop investigating Benghazi after 10 times if there were real crimes? And when the e-mails aren't mentioned again, will your head explode? Nope, you'll be defending Pence's need to destroy HIS e-mails and our new National Security Advisor's huge payments from foreign governments he is getting. And of course, no problem with foreign governments doing business with Trump and getting special access. That's always okay if it's a Republican. You'll fight NOT to have the press notice at all. Just "business"!
Funny how this crime isn't even serious enough for the FBI to pursue once their chosen candidate won. PT Barnum would be proud. I guess it wasn't really serious at all, was it? You really think the FBI would drop investigating real crimes? You think Congress would stop investigating Benghazi after 10 times if there were real crimes? And when the e-mails aren't mentioned again, will your head explode? Nope, you'll be defending Pence's need to destroy HIS e-mails and our new National Security Advisor's huge payments from foreign governments he is getting. And of course, no problem with foreign governments doing business with Trump and getting special access. That's always okay if it's a Republican. You'll fight NOT to have the press notice at all. Just "business"!
I was thrilled to read in the letter from Messrs. Sulzberger and Baquet that the Times plans on "rededicating" itself to the bad job it did covering the the 2016 election. The Public editor then confirmed it.
Concerning Ms. Capwell and her pals in North Carolina: They may or may not be racists, but the fact is that they enable racists at the ballot box. Since the Times claims to deal in facts, one would hope the Public Editor might suggest that reporting that reality is more sensible than merely giving a platform for them to promote their candidate. That idiotic attitude is exactly why the Times election coverage was so awful. Rededicating, indeed.
Concerning Ms. Capwell and her pals in North Carolina: They may or may not be racists, but the fact is that they enable racists at the ballot box. Since the Times claims to deal in facts, one would hope the Public Editor might suggest that reporting that reality is more sensible than merely giving a platform for them to promote their candidate. That idiotic attitude is exactly why the Times election coverage was so awful. Rededicating, indeed.
13
And calling approximately 30 million people--half those who voted for Trump--deplorables and irredeemable is not enabling a different type or group of racists?
3
Since you believe so many of us Trump supporters are racists, perhaps you have a different definition of the word. I hardly think wanting to secure the borders or vet people from predominantly Muslim countries, all in an effort to keep us safe and protect our workers, makes one a racist.
4
Which of the candidates, exactly, did they enable, and please be specific as to why you think they are racists? Is it because they want to deport criminal illegal aliens such as the man who killed Kate Steinle, and why is that a bad thing that millions of people agree with that policy?
2
Quite astonishing the number of comments critical of my own earlier. What I can only say to those who supported and voted for Mr Trump, is wait and see what happens to our country under the administration of Donald Trump.
And I have a great book to recommend to anyone who reads anything:
"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay. Published in 1841 but still pertinent today.
And I have a great book to recommend to anyone who reads anything:
"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay. Published in 1841 but still pertinent today.
3
Well many of us felt the same way about Obama--and are disappointed with the direction our country has taken as a result of his terms in office. Liberals say they are open to other opinions and are astonished when others actually have any.
2
What about the other crowd?
Cindy Capwell should get that visit. And they will want to answer for their vote given what has followed with Trump's cabinet. I know not every voter for Trump has racism/sexism/anti-immigrant etc. as their goal. I really know that. But there are real-life consequences to overlooking those facts of Trump's rhetoric too. And they aren't pretty and they belong to you. You have a heavy obligation now to stand up for those who Trump maligned to get elected and who will be his administration's targets.
To the Dems: the slimy tricks re: Sanders, the arrogance towards working people while courting bankers, the double standards on Dem. men's sexism and predator material, trying to win by using identity politics while ignoring the destruction of no more welfare, NAFTA and other trade treaties, the years of neglect for all of those in poverty of every color, losing sight of economic oppression as key, the fascination with celebrity and fashion while others live in shacks or on the street. No one gets a pass. None of us do.
To the Dems: the slimy tricks re: Sanders, the arrogance towards working people while courting bankers, the double standards on Dem. men's sexism and predator material, trying to win by using identity politics while ignoring the destruction of no more welfare, NAFTA and other trade treaties, the years of neglect for all of those in poverty of every color, losing sight of economic oppression as key, the fascination with celebrity and fashion while others live in shacks or on the street. No one gets a pass. None of us do.
6
But there would have been no real life consequences to calling half of Trump supporters deplorables, right?
I'm guessing this has already come up, but, ok, go visit Ms. Capwell and her friends. Hear them out. Report back. Agreed this would be similar to previous features the Times has done, but Ms. Capwell says her vote for Trump was for reasons the Times doesn't recognize. This is interesting. Let's hear her and her friends out.
5
Yes. I for one will be interested. As a regular Times reader, my assumption is that they voted for Trump for some combination of the following:
1. They wanted change.
2. They feel insecure economically and/or culturally (or know a lot of people who do).
3. They strongly identify with Conservative Republican ideas on economics or government (or Hillary-bashing).
4. They are less concerned about climate change, social justice, equality, democracy, and evidence-based thinking then with other priorities. (That is, they aren't unconcerned, but it other things trump - no pun intended - those.)
If it is something other than this list of NYT suspects, I will be genuinely surprised and curious.
1. They wanted change.
2. They feel insecure economically and/or culturally (or know a lot of people who do).
3. They strongly identify with Conservative Republican ideas on economics or government (or Hillary-bashing).
4. They are less concerned about climate change, social justice, equality, democracy, and evidence-based thinking then with other priorities. (That is, they aren't unconcerned, but it other things trump - no pun intended - those.)
If it is something other than this list of NYT suspects, I will be genuinely surprised and curious.
2
As usual, I find Ms Spayd's perspective, way out of whack with reality. The article's headline promises to air the grievances of voters disappointed in the election coverage of the NYT. But the only voters she mentions are those on the right complaining that the coverage was too liberal and biased in favor of Secretary Clinton. As the hundreds of comments below show there were strong feelings on the other side....which are not given voice by Ms Spayd. I was dismayed throughout the election season by the endless, inflaming coverage of the Clinton's emails and then the Clinton Foundation. As has happened with all the other so called "scandals" about the Clintons.....there was never anything too much to them. But the NYT fanned the flames with glaring headlines above the fold day after day. This helped set the tone, that Clinton was dishonest and corrupt....playing directly into the Republican's playbook. Just like the FBI, NYT's reporters took the bait from the right wing book "Clinton Cash" written by Peter Schweizer of Steve Bannon's Government Accountability Institute. To use Bannon's own words: “We’ve got the 15 best investigative reporters at the 15 best newspapers in the country all chasing after Hillary Clinton.” (Bloomberg News). The NYT seemed to have a reckoning in September and changed course a bit....and started covering Trumps digressions with some of the same fervor. But it was too late. I hope that there is some serious soul searching on the news side.
29
She was dishonest! Over and over. How can you not see that? Watch the videos. Read her statements.
9
Front page stories in The Times unfavorable to Trump compared to Clinton ran 8-1. Enough said.
3
There were objectively a lot more unfavorable facts about Trump. Deal with it.
Well. Sure the Times could have and should have probed deeper into the concerns of Trump supporters, just like everyone else should have. But when sitting down with those ladies in NC, the question should also be: Why would you ally yourself with someone who uses the tools he used to get elected, even if you think he isn't a racist, or most of his supporters are racists? There are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed. This wasn't just politics as usual, hold your nose and vote for the guy because you agree with 3 of his positions and abhor 2. Or just because you agree with all his policy proposals but think his behavior on the path to the White House was un-American in the most profound way. If those who loathe Hillary felt that character matters, how could they possibly vote for Trump?
16
I find this column outrageous. Why do certain Trump voters have a claim to victimhood (or a visit) because the behavior at their candidate’s rallies was covered as it happened? Stop pandering, Ms. Spayd. There's plenty the Times should reflect on -- first and foremost the over-the-top coverage of the Comey non-story -- but the hurt feelings of those who have to answer for the despicable conduct of the man they supported is not on the list.
27
To anyone beholding the idea that voting for a presidential nominee who said we need to ban a religious faith doesn't mean they are also guilty of religious intolerance...."WRONG".
12
I suppose it doesn't bother you that Obama has used a religious test in deciding which refugees to let into the country, right? It's 99 percent Muslim and almost no Christians allowed in.
1
A well chosen subject and compliments to The Times for stating the obvious. In news coverage a neutrality is imperative to fair and honest reporting. It is not the job of the Forth Estate to sway the opinion of their audience nor to take sides based on the reporters principle belief or consideration. This the most difficult challenge of all journalists as they seek the extreme views in a constant source of information. At best we are flawed, at worst we choose to be flawed. Without a Forth Estate, the other three gain power and become corrupt. It's simple. Carry on this mission and know its vitality in the coming years is essential and even, most important for clear thought. Democracy depends upon it.
1
Zito, writing for The Atlantic (9/23), had an important insight in pointing out that many in the media took Trump literally but not seriously, while his supporters took him seriously but not literally.
That is still happening after the election. On Nov. 17th on an NPR show (Morning Edition) the journalist (Steve Inskeep) was relentlessly cross-examining Brandon Judd (head of the Border Patrol union) on border fence details, to the point of absurdity, while Judd was trying to explain the bigger picture of achieving border security. Inskeep just didn't get it at all, while doubtless pleased with himself for acting at a "tough" journalist.
That is still happening after the election. On Nov. 17th on an NPR show (Morning Edition) the journalist (Steve Inskeep) was relentlessly cross-examining Brandon Judd (head of the Border Patrol union) on border fence details, to the point of absurdity, while Judd was trying to explain the bigger picture of achieving border security. Inskeep just didn't get it at all, while doubtless pleased with himself for acting at a "tough" journalist.
19
i understand how this group of friends feel. I too am a college educated, successful business woman, in my 60s, white, voted fro Hillary, and believe that my views were not reflected in this election either. I would invite you to come and visit me as well. I sympathize with this group of women who feel that they are not personally homophobic, racist or anti-Muslin. However the fact remains that Trump voters did support a candidate that espoused racist, anti-Muslin views/promises and is now following through on appointing Cabinet members with proven racist and anti Semitic viewpoints. Regardless of how this group of women decided, their voting actions indicate that the either support racism and anti-Muslim positions or they are relatively indifferent to them. You can't have it both ways.
22
On a related matter, is it not time for The Times to drop the pretense of being a "neutral" paper and declare itself a progressive liberal institution like The Guardian in the UK. That doesn't mean conservative points of view can't be given or analyzed, but no one thinks The Times is anything but liberal.
Better to start with this realism and go from there instead of working under a false front.
Better to start with this realism and go from there instead of working under a false front.
18
Overall The Times has not provided the kind of campaign coverage that we the readers have the right to expect from the newspaper of record. And why things have improved somewhat since the election, it's only a matter of degree. Why, for example, no reader comments allowed on the Kushner (of the steadying hand) disgraceful puff piece?
6
The way the Upshot has responded to the election is absolutely unacceptable and it should be terminated from working for the Times. According to the Upshot, it can't be faulted for claiming there was an 80-90% chance Clinton would be elected, because its reporting always indicated Trump had a chance to win. By this logic, even if it had told readers Clinton had a 99.999% chance of winning, Upshot could not be faulted when Trump won. In fact, it could say: Told you so! (0.001% chance realized!)
Trump raked in over 300 electoral votes and his party held both houses of Congress, sweeping the state houses for good measure. Trump's victory was so decisive that it would have been good enough to beat Obama in 2012. Upshot's job was to analyze the public opinion polls that said Clinton would win handily, polls which were absolutely wrong, and expose their faults. Instead, Upshot magnified their faults, shouting from the rooftops that they were right.
If a NYT reader had bet their life savings on the presidential election by following the odds articulated by Upshot, they would have been wiped out. Upshot never alerted readers to the prospect that states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania could decisively repudiate Clinton, or that "battleground" states like Florida and North Carolina would do the same. It misled readers mightily, and it should apologize fervently rather than wiggling like a greased pig do avoid accountability.
Trump raked in over 300 electoral votes and his party held both houses of Congress, sweeping the state houses for good measure. Trump's victory was so decisive that it would have been good enough to beat Obama in 2012. Upshot's job was to analyze the public opinion polls that said Clinton would win handily, polls which were absolutely wrong, and expose their faults. Instead, Upshot magnified their faults, shouting from the rooftops that they were right.
If a NYT reader had bet their life savings on the presidential election by following the odds articulated by Upshot, they would have been wiped out. Upshot never alerted readers to the prospect that states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania could decisively repudiate Clinton, or that "battleground" states like Florida and North Carolina would do the same. It misled readers mightily, and it should apologize fervently rather than wiggling like a greased pig do avoid accountability.
12
This was a very alarming article. The outrage comes from educated, informed readers who saw the Times vilify an honest politician and normalize a horrid one (objectively - ask every other editorial board in the country).
But instead you write about ten white women in North Carolina!? Are all the Trump supporters who wrote to you even subscribers? Do you check? The article's rhetoric is turning me into an unwilling subscriber.; your job is to be the voice of truth, not false equivalency. And for the poor white women in North Carolina, you can send them this (it's from the Times):
On Aug. 19, 2015, shortly after midnight, the brothers Stephen and Scott Leader assaulted Guillermo Rodriguez. Rodriguez had been sleeping near a train station in Boston. The Leader brothers beat him with a metal pipe, breaking his nose and bruising his ribs, and called him a “wetback.” They urinated on him. “All these illegals need to be deported,” they are said to have declared during the attack. The brothers were fans of the candidate who would go on to win the Republican party’s presidential nomination. Told of the incident at the time, that candidate said: “People who are following me are very passionate. They love this country, and they want this country to be great again.”
But instead you write about ten white women in North Carolina!? Are all the Trump supporters who wrote to you even subscribers? Do you check? The article's rhetoric is turning me into an unwilling subscriber.; your job is to be the voice of truth, not false equivalency. And for the poor white women in North Carolina, you can send them this (it's from the Times):
On Aug. 19, 2015, shortly after midnight, the brothers Stephen and Scott Leader assaulted Guillermo Rodriguez. Rodriguez had been sleeping near a train station in Boston. The Leader brothers beat him with a metal pipe, breaking his nose and bruising his ribs, and called him a “wetback.” They urinated on him. “All these illegals need to be deported,” they are said to have declared during the attack. The brothers were fans of the candidate who would go on to win the Republican party’s presidential nomination. Told of the incident at the time, that candidate said: “People who are following me are very passionate. They love this country, and they want this country to be great again.”
12
I remember moving to London from NY for grad school and being so surprised when they didn't have the NY Times in the library. And being even more surprised when -- after polling my European friends -- I realized that not a single one of them read the Times, even occasionally.
What puzzles me is that despite Trump winning the election and despite the NY Times at least publicly recognizing the issue, I haven't seen any difference in the tone of the coverage in the NY Times. Trump's policies are still inane, Trump voters are still spectacles, NY Times readers are still puzzled by how all this happened.
The only thing I can see that can help address this huge gap is by basing more reporters and editors outside of New York and being more receptive to views that don't conform to those of the standard liberal mindset. I think if the Times stopped assuming it was the only authoritative source for news, it might work a bit harder to report on events.
What puzzles me is that despite Trump winning the election and despite the NY Times at least publicly recognizing the issue, I haven't seen any difference in the tone of the coverage in the NY Times. Trump's policies are still inane, Trump voters are still spectacles, NY Times readers are still puzzled by how all this happened.
The only thing I can see that can help address this huge gap is by basing more reporters and editors outside of New York and being more receptive to views that don't conform to those of the standard liberal mindset. I think if the Times stopped assuming it was the only authoritative source for news, it might work a bit harder to report on events.
8
I unsubscribed from the NYT during the Democratic primary because of its one-sided coverage in favor of Mrs. Clinton.
I am back now, hopeful that reporting will be more objective, because I believe journalism needs to be given a chance. Hopefully, the NYT has learned from its mistakes. A perception of bias will not be helpful in the Trump era.
I am back now, hopeful that reporting will be more objective, because I believe journalism needs to be given a chance. Hopefully, the NYT has learned from its mistakes. A perception of bias will not be helpful in the Trump era.
1
I felt the NY Times never treated Bernie Sanders s a serious candidate; they only saw him as Hillary Clinton's spoiler. And they rode the "free publicity for Donald" wave that much of the news media jumped on, seeing that his outrageous comments and actions sold papers and increased audiences. Bernie wasn't into those kind of games and so he was either ignored or treated as an annoyance they had to put up with.
I hold the media partially responsible for how this election turned out.
I hold the media partially responsible for how this election turned out.
4
Enough of the mea culpas! The Times has bent over backwards to be “fair-minded” even as Trump’s campaign offered nothing but lies. All the media coverage was slanted to Trump, and harder on Clinton. NPR has admitted it. For every five photos of Trump, there was one of Clinton. If Trump’s more moderate voters feel unfairly categorized, how do they explain their support for a person who campaigned on overt racism, never disavowed the KKK, dismissed all precedents of debate protocol and even common decency, openly abuses women, newscasters and debate moderators alike, refuses to pay taxes, cheats his own contractors, provokes violence at rallies, welcomes sabotage via foreign sources and our own FBI, in his quest to win at all costs. They voted for that because he promised to bring some jobs to their town? And these women consider themselves “educated?” Sorry, ladies of North Carolina, the burden of proof is on you.
My beef with the Times is that even though you wisely endorsed candidate Clinton, almost none of the editorial writers rose to her defense against the constant repetition of lies and personal character defamation spewed by the Trump/Bannon campaign. In every article we were made to endure the litany of Republican and alt-right invented memes about her lack of trustworthiness, the false equivalencies, and then maybe some begrudging support. We know that the hatred and vitriol was literally trumped up. Why did the Times not refute it?
My beef with the Times is that even though you wisely endorsed candidate Clinton, almost none of the editorial writers rose to her defense against the constant repetition of lies and personal character defamation spewed by the Trump/Bannon campaign. In every article we were made to endure the litany of Republican and alt-right invented memes about her lack of trustworthiness, the false equivalencies, and then maybe some begrudging support. We know that the hatred and vitriol was literally trumped up. Why did the Times not refute it?
12
Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald wrote a cover story about Trump's many poteantial conflicts of interest with foreign businesses and debt, long before the election. Trump suddenly scheduled the Dr. Oz show appearance to release his "medical report" (that never was publicly released), and the media participated in making Hillary's pneumonia and "stamina" and "why did she not say anything sooner?" The stiry. Eichenwald's story got lost -- until now AFTER the election, when these financial conflicts of interest are coming to psss. Trumpnis a master at manipulating the press. $25M settlement for federal fraud charges? Send Pence to Hamilton and create culture war in the news. Settlement story one day piece. Mission accomplished.
My point: The media is still falling into Trump's traps. He is a sociopath. Adjust. I won't even get into the obsessive analysis of polls. ...
My point: The media is still falling into Trump's traps. He is a sociopath. Adjust. I won't even get into the obsessive analysis of polls. ...
10
Some of the commenters here still don't seem to get it. The race card has been played out. You called everyone who dissented racists and bigots, to the point where now EVERYONE is some form of bigot to you. Don't like illegal immigration, Congrats, here's your deplorable sticker. Sick of corruption in Washington, you misogynist. here's your deplorable sticker. You guys managed to alienate just about every group in the US with fabrications. You called Trump anti-gay, when he was the first Republican candidate to openly embrace the gay Republicans. You called him racist when he is the first Republican candidate to actually campaign for the black vote. You continue to lie about him, and his picks, and denigrate anyone who dares to show any support. And THAT is why you lost.
25
One things the Times should stop doing is selectively reporting so much on "public opinion" through stories that merely recite some agenda-driven reaction against a pronouncement or act by a public figure. The Times is full of stories citing a few tweets or the opinion of someone with the ear of the reporter as evidence of some kind of public sentiment backlash, but they are invariably anecdotal and devoid of anything more than ginned up false outrage in service of some special interest.
This is the real echo chamber the rest of us our talking about. Liberal opinion pieces disguised as news stories.
I guess I'm saying the Times should report the news when it happens, not its meta analysis of the impact on public opinion because, well, it just gets it wrong (see, e.g., the number of negative vs positive stories about Trump) and invariably interjects a bias. Like they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.
This is the real echo chamber the rest of us our talking about. Liberal opinion pieces disguised as news stories.
I guess I'm saying the Times should report the news when it happens, not its meta analysis of the impact on public opinion because, well, it just gets it wrong (see, e.g., the number of negative vs positive stories about Trump) and invariably interjects a bias. Like they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.
11
The story on Trump taking business meetings during transition ran on page A20 today, not page 1, where a story on Clinton's emails would have been placed. I'm furious. I've had enough.
I'm pleased to report that I have just now persuaded my husband to cancel the delivery of the Times.
I will support the Guardian, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, Rollingstone, New Republic, the Atlantic, Democracy Now, the Washington Post -- but no more of this moribund pile. I feel bad for our carrier.
I'm 63; I loved the NY Times from when I was 14 -- almost 50 years. But this is it. This paper does more harm than good.
I'm pleased to report that I have just now persuaded my husband to cancel the delivery of the Times.
I will support the Guardian, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, Rollingstone, New Republic, the Atlantic, Democracy Now, the Washington Post -- but no more of this moribund pile. I feel bad for our carrier.
I'm 63; I loved the NY Times from when I was 14 -- almost 50 years. But this is it. This paper does more harm than good.
17
Horrible coverage. But then you didn't have much credibility to lose.
8
People who voted for Trump and think they're not racist do not have good listening skills, or don't bother to talk to people of color. If you AND neo- nazis are supporting the same candidate...you're racist. Even if you don't think so. Even if your vote was for "other reasons". You just don't care enough about people of color to worry about how a Trump presidency might affect those communities. You only thought of yourself.
9
You mean, like me. First wife black, second wife an undocumented Honduran with whom I have a 1 1/2 year old Hispanic daughter. Myself, twenty years immersed in Latin cultures, 14 years as a professional interpreter. You mean like me? Face it, as a group, you dogmatics are all emotion and no brains.
7
Sorry. Not buying it. Yeah, news papers should actually cover facts and give all the information and verify it before printing.
But no news paper gave me the idea those voters are exactly what they claim they aren't. Trump and every person he has surrounded himself with gave me that idea.
I don't care if they don't like it. They shouldn't have voted for the racist and told the entire world he is ok.
Now they need to suck it up and take responsibility for their actions.
I didn't subscribe to the Times until I read their apology article, but if they think for one second I'll keep the subscription if they normalize the behavior of this sexist pig, they have another think coming.
I'm not getting in line to return to the 1950s and if these educated women are dumb enough to vote against their own best interest, well mercy is for God to give. I don't owe them an olive branch. They owe me one if they want me to believe their lip service.
But no news paper gave me the idea those voters are exactly what they claim they aren't. Trump and every person he has surrounded himself with gave me that idea.
I don't care if they don't like it. They shouldn't have voted for the racist and told the entire world he is ok.
Now they need to suck it up and take responsibility for their actions.
I didn't subscribe to the Times until I read their apology article, but if they think for one second I'll keep the subscription if they normalize the behavior of this sexist pig, they have another think coming.
I'm not getting in line to return to the 1950s and if these educated women are dumb enough to vote against their own best interest, well mercy is for God to give. I don't owe them an olive branch. They owe me one if they want me to believe their lip service.
8
Is the Times refusing to post comments that are not abusive but challenge Trump's supporters?
4
This incredibly nonsensical referencing of a handful of people to explain how they came to vote the way they did and to critique the media coverage is a serious wast of time.
For example, People, did you not see, hear and read about Donald Trump for yourselves???..... constantly spewing hatred, twisting the truth, slandering and name calling, ridiculing, threatening his opponent in the most alarming, un-American manner. It was non-stop hate, hate, hate and the folks at his campaign appearances seemed to love it. He was constantly in the news, his speeches, tweets and rants covered word for word, replayed ad nausem; there is no excuse for not knowing who this man is and what he stands for... he has told us himself, repeatedly. Don't blame the mainstream media for your own failure to be informed and think,...... and don't complain, if you announce that you are a Trump supporter that others assume you support his ideas and goals.
Donald Trump has practically moved into our living rooms full time for the past year plus and you want to blame news coverage for your inability to see what is clear and right in front of you, spoken by the candidate. Take some personal responsibility and stop the blame game. And by the way, If you are not a racist, there is no need to say so; it just does not ring true.
For example, People, did you not see, hear and read about Donald Trump for yourselves???..... constantly spewing hatred, twisting the truth, slandering and name calling, ridiculing, threatening his opponent in the most alarming, un-American manner. It was non-stop hate, hate, hate and the folks at his campaign appearances seemed to love it. He was constantly in the news, his speeches, tweets and rants covered word for word, replayed ad nausem; there is no excuse for not knowing who this man is and what he stands for... he has told us himself, repeatedly. Don't blame the mainstream media for your own failure to be informed and think,...... and don't complain, if you announce that you are a Trump supporter that others assume you support his ideas and goals.
Donald Trump has practically moved into our living rooms full time for the past year plus and you want to blame news coverage for your inability to see what is clear and right in front of you, spoken by the candidate. Take some personal responsibility and stop the blame game. And by the way, If you are not a racist, there is no need to say so; it just does not ring true.
7
Count me among those readers who were upset that The Upshot forecast emblazoned on the front page was so very misleading.
5
I happen to agree with the point of the article. I'm a little tired of hearing people from the "Elitist Class" talk down to us in the other parts of the country as some kind of country bumpkins. They live in their own little echo chamber listening to each other to reinforce their own opinions. I saw more shock on election night from anchors and reporters on CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN (Even NPR and I was disappointed by that) than I saw when 9/11 occurred. Many of us who supported Trump live in big cities and small towns, both red and blue. Many of us are actually educated and read more than just the New York Times or watch Fox News to get our information. We think that a mix of print, cable TV, and the Internet from many sources is a good balance on getting information about the world. People everywhere just want a good paying job, to feel safe, and to live a good life. That concept has been mostly ignored by politicians, except as talking points to get elected. Even before the housing bubble in 2007, industry and other jobs in the US had been getting shipped overseas as part of globalization. We want to fix it and get back to a decent life (or something like it). Maybe if you listen a little bit to the rest of the "Flyover Country" (not the nut jobs pushed by the media) and you might learn something.
7
There is one aspect of the Times coverage of the election that, whilst not of utmost importance, goes largely unremarked. The Times positions itself as a newspaper of record, and a flagship journal. As such, many foreigners, like myself, have spent good money subscribing to the Times on the faith of that reputation. Further, often we have no dog in any particular fight, and a more limited understanding of pressing issues in the United States, but due to the importance of the United States in global affairs and the resources of the Times, we subscribe in order to obtain a studied picture of domestic matters in the United States and the coverage of foreign matters.
The Times gave me a totally distorted impression of the recent election and the currents that produced the Trump outcome. To be honest, it has led me to now question much of what else the Times reports on. For those of us who mainly relied on the Times for the coverage of the Presidential election and do not live in the US, we were given the impression that there was basically no chance of Trump winning. Having travelled extensively overseas for work and leisure, I must say that I cannot recall an occasion when such an important journal has so misread the mood of the country in which it is based on such a critical issue. Surely not all Americans who voted for Trump are prejudiced, and if that is so, how could such a well-resourced and established newspaper get it all so very wrong?
The Times gave me a totally distorted impression of the recent election and the currents that produced the Trump outcome. To be honest, it has led me to now question much of what else the Times reports on. For those of us who mainly relied on the Times for the coverage of the Presidential election and do not live in the US, we were given the impression that there was basically no chance of Trump winning. Having travelled extensively overseas for work and leisure, I must say that I cannot recall an occasion when such an important journal has so misread the mood of the country in which it is based on such a critical issue. Surely not all Americans who voted for Trump are prejudiced, and if that is so, how could such a well-resourced and established newspaper get it all so very wrong?
8
Shallowness and provincialism are big problems at the NYT. The NYT badly needs to raise its game on factual reporting and investigative reporting (in Manhattan and especially beyond it). Really, I had the impression throughout this election that most people at the NYT were basically Googling things and then writing up their findings in a midtown Starbucks. And the difference between "straight reporting" stories and the opinion pages was hard to see. You guys need to go back and read some in-depth histories of journalism. I get the impression many reporters over there don't even know that history. You could start with Halberstam's The Powers that Be, or Bradlee's memoirs and so on. I would also recommend that everyone look up the history of journalism in 1950s America (McCarthy) and 1930s Germany (you-know-who). You will be needing these perspectives. But also - do not lose your nerve. Don't normalize what is definitely not normal. We are already seeing serious and very alarming attacks on the Press and the First Amendment from politicians. You definitely need to be ready. Meanwhile - go and listen to the ladies in NC. That kind of thing is urgent.
7
I'm sad to say that the Times (and virtually all main stream media) still hasn't learned a thing from their massive miss on the election. Instead of honest reflection and a new dedication to thoughtful coverage, I see only the continued simplistic view of the country. The excuse for the left's loss of the election has quaintly been boiled down to one reason - anger on the right because the "elites" have ignored the economic hardships in middle america. There has been absolutely NO honest attempt to understand why we got the election results we did.
Where are the tough articles discussing whether or not the left needs to open their eyes to some of the issues that the right actually says they care about, especially immigration, the impact of the growth of Islam globally and at home, and the overly politically correct and almost whiny left?
I am an old school liberal and proud of it. I am for truly EQUAL rights for the LGBTQ community, women's rights, minorities rights, true freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc, etc, which is why Trump disgusts me and I voted for Clinton. But that is NOT contradictory with being for strong border control, concerned about Islam and its global lack of embrace of the aforementioned western values, sick of the coddling of the american mind (to steal a phrase from The Atlantic), and concerned that there is too much immigration in the US now, both legal and illegal.
Wake up and provide balanced viewpoints, even within the left.
Where are the tough articles discussing whether or not the left needs to open their eyes to some of the issues that the right actually says they care about, especially immigration, the impact of the growth of Islam globally and at home, and the overly politically correct and almost whiny left?
I am an old school liberal and proud of it. I am for truly EQUAL rights for the LGBTQ community, women's rights, minorities rights, true freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc, etc, which is why Trump disgusts me and I voted for Clinton. But that is NOT contradictory with being for strong border control, concerned about Islam and its global lack of embrace of the aforementioned western values, sick of the coddling of the american mind (to steal a phrase from The Atlantic), and concerned that there is too much immigration in the US now, both legal and illegal.
Wake up and provide balanced viewpoints, even within the left.
8
I wonder if the NYT polling graph of HRC having an 80% plus chance of winning made some sit out the election and not vote, thinking that she had it in the bag.
That 'news' assessment of a slam dunk win was beyond smug, it was almost criminal. Stick to reporting and not being fraudulent, crystal ball predictors.
Many of us want our money (and country) back now.
That 'news' assessment of a slam dunk win was beyond smug, it was almost criminal. Stick to reporting and not being fraudulent, crystal ball predictors.
Many of us want our money (and country) back now.
2
No, not BETTER campaign coverage. FAIR campaign coverage, which means (much to the surprise of the author and the ENTIRE NY Times staff) you DON'T try to influence the election, nor do you openly demean people who do not chose to vote the way you wanted them to. The TOTAL lack of real JOURNALISM exhibited by the Times, and many other periodicals is what upsets Americans.
11
So what heads are going to roll at NYT for its tinted to deeply flawed coverage?
Or this paper like the big banks is also going to go unscathed?
Seriously, the most the paper does after having bungled monumentally and failing its readers is say "oh we heard you, the media's coverage was flawed"?
Times - let me tell you, you are the face of a corrupt media.
Or this paper like the big banks is also going to go unscathed?
Seriously, the most the paper does after having bungled monumentally and failing its readers is say "oh we heard you, the media's coverage was flawed"?
Times - let me tell you, you are the face of a corrupt media.
10
It is shocking that, even now, The Times is so fully out of touch that it does not grasp the self-inflicted damage it did to itself by the cascade of poor decisions it made on how to cover the 2016 election, primary and general. Start with it not doing a reality check in 2014 -- along with the Democratic Party Leadership elite, its donor class, its elected party officials -- to verify that its implicitly anointed candidate, Sec. Clinton, in policy positions and personal history, was in touch with the dominant mood of the country. Advance to how Sanders came out of nowhere in the primary to exceed her fundraising totals, her number of individual donors, and defeat her in states thought impossible. Factor in it not asking itself whether the surge of nationalist/nativist parties in Europe, as well as the Brexit vote and its potential significance, should be more carefully analyzed. Consider it not asking what was useful to glean from Trump's ready dispatch of all opponents in the Republican primary, and what that could portend.
Readers needed The Times to take a step back, see the dead canaries piling up at its feet, critically analyze what was really happening in the primaries and European democracies, and report that out. It did not.
Its profound failure this election in its recent history is matched only by its profound failure of judgment in endorsing the Iraq War in 2002-03. But 2016 is not 2002-03; we needed The Times even more in 2016. Its failure hurts us all.
Readers needed The Times to take a step back, see the dead canaries piling up at its feet, critically analyze what was really happening in the primaries and European democracies, and report that out. It did not.
Its profound failure this election in its recent history is matched only by its profound failure of judgment in endorsing the Iraq War in 2002-03. But 2016 is not 2002-03; we needed The Times even more in 2016. Its failure hurts us all.
7
By 2014, Amy Chozick was in her second year on the Clinton beat.
There were zero other candidate beats, none, until early 2016
There were zero other candidate beats, none, until early 2016
5
Is the "Public Editor"'s job just to regurgitate some selected remarks of readers? I'd actually thought the Public Editor would undertake some critique of how well the Times is doing its job as envisioned in the term "freedom of the press". That entails evaluating whether the Times has been digging into matters in depth, or simply doing "he said this, she said that" reporting. That is about all the Times did, actually, and certainly all the Public Editor has done here.
7
So let me understand this, Trump supporters are upset that they were portrayed in "extremist" terms in this newspaper.
I am sorry, but if you supported and later voted voted for the only presidential candidate that profusely spread xenophobic, racist and misogynistic rhetoric and did nothing to distance himself from white nationalistic hate groups and whose first picks for his cabinet - to put it mildly - have well-reported difficulties dealing with racial and religious issues, somehow I think most reasonable people would have a right to conclude you are true reflection of the man you supported and voted for.
So, New York Times, instead of quoting "outrage" from people with indefensible views and choosing to act defensively, how about your newspaper delve into the mindset of the many millions of Americans who supported and voted for a candidate whose moral compass is more in tune with 1916 America and provide us with some insight why our country still has so many problems dealing with race, gender equality and respect for all religious.
I am sorry, but if you supported and later voted voted for the only presidential candidate that profusely spread xenophobic, racist and misogynistic rhetoric and did nothing to distance himself from white nationalistic hate groups and whose first picks for his cabinet - to put it mildly - have well-reported difficulties dealing with racial and religious issues, somehow I think most reasonable people would have a right to conclude you are true reflection of the man you supported and voted for.
So, New York Times, instead of quoting "outrage" from people with indefensible views and choosing to act defensively, how about your newspaper delve into the mindset of the many millions of Americans who supported and voted for a candidate whose moral compass is more in tune with 1916 America and provide us with some insight why our country still has so many problems dealing with race, gender equality and respect for all religious.
10
I grew up on the Times more than 50 years ago when I lived in NY. I moved to CA in 1983 and the Times was my link to my home town and my window to what's happening in the world. I loved the NY Times. For most of my 50+ years, I've enjoyed home delivery of the Times, even in recently years when it became ridiculously expensive. I wasn't just spending money to be informed, I was supporting the single most important news organization anywhere, performing a critical function in our democracy.
With sadness and quite a bit of anger, I saw the Times this year play a lead role in the massive media malpractice that has resulted in Donald Trump being elected president.
I canceled my home delivery of the Times on Friday.
With sadness and quite a bit of anger, I saw the Times this year play a lead role in the massive media malpractice that has resulted in Donald Trump being elected president.
I canceled my home delivery of the Times on Friday.
2
There are many Trump voter who see themselves as "nice people". Clearly they do not think of themselves as racist haters. The KKK doesn't call itself a racist hate group. Sometime people have little self-awareness. That does not diminish the fact that they voted for a man who fanned the flame of bigotry in our country. Early last year, we were in NC on vacation and saw a lawn sign that read "Hillary for Prison". We thought it was funny at the time. In the year that followed, we learned this sentiment was quite serious and while we meet "really nice" people on that trip, we will not be coming back to that state for a very long time. In the meantime, I do hope the educated women of Charlotte will continue to read our hometown newspaper. They have a bit to learn about what it means to be a racist. If they didn't want to be lumped together with white supremacists, they probably shouldn't a have voted for the bully whose hate filled rhetoric sent misogynists and xenophobes into a frenzy. It's pretty likely they knew exactly what they voted for. While they may not want to think of themselves as racist, they are clearly okay with racism. The New York Times needs to keep educating its readers by making sure that stories like the one on the front page today about Trump induced bullying of HS students in Iowa, stay on the front page. Self proclaimed "nice people" need to be reminded what they voted for.
7
Does one vote define a person? What about their other votes throughout their lifetime? Do none of those count? I'm tired of seeing people become unhinged over a difference of political opinion!
We get the Times home delivered and it got to the point where we laughed at the daily attack on Trump on the front page, often in the prime right hand spot.
I've watched a few youtubes of Alec Baldwin playing Trump on Saturday Night Live. I think Alec Baldwin is a good actor and I've liked his work in so many roles but, boy, does he ever misfire as Trump. Like the Times, he just doesn't get Trump.
The polls that said Clinton was significantly ahead of Trump and sure to win were the result of many voters not participating in polls. We watched a year and a half of Big Media so obtuse and uptight about Trump. It was way beyond "bias."
I've watched a few youtubes of Alec Baldwin playing Trump on Saturday Night Live. I think Alec Baldwin is a good actor and I've liked his work in so many roles but, boy, does he ever misfire as Trump. Like the Times, he just doesn't get Trump.
The polls that said Clinton was significantly ahead of Trump and sure to win were the result of many voters not participating in polls. We watched a year and a half of Big Media so obtuse and uptight about Trump. It was way beyond "bias."
7
The problem I have with the press coverage of the Trump campaign and the NYT coverage in particular, is that in the beginning they were giving him $ Millions in free press because it increased readership and therefore ad dollars. The most outrageous statements were reported as facts.
When it became apparent that he was in fact going to become the Republican nominee, the coverage changed. It went from "look what this wacko is doing now" to "OMG it could really happen."
Being anti-Trump is fine on the editorial pages, I would expect that. The Times however went much further. A review of the last few weeks of their coverage of the campaign will show that they destroyed the wall between the editorial pages and the news operation. The Times went all in on an attempt to defeat Trump. Worse still, they refused to even look at reports that showed a rising tide of people who were dissatisfied with the Democrats enough to vote for Trump. Hence the Upshot election odometer on the home page. Since they had purposely put on blinders, they were of course surprised by the result.
I would hope one of the results of the election debacle at the Times will be a retraining and re-dedication, from top to bottom, of journalistic ethics. This should be a reminder to all, why there are lines in journalism that are not to be crossed.
When it became apparent that he was in fact going to become the Republican nominee, the coverage changed. It went from "look what this wacko is doing now" to "OMG it could really happen."
Being anti-Trump is fine on the editorial pages, I would expect that. The Times however went much further. A review of the last few weeks of their coverage of the campaign will show that they destroyed the wall between the editorial pages and the news operation. The Times went all in on an attempt to defeat Trump. Worse still, they refused to even look at reports that showed a rising tide of people who were dissatisfied with the Democrats enough to vote for Trump. Hence the Upshot election odometer on the home page. Since they had purposely put on blinders, they were of course surprised by the result.
I would hope one of the results of the election debacle at the Times will be a retraining and re-dedication, from top to bottom, of journalistic ethics. This should be a reminder to all, why there are lines in journalism that are not to be crossed.
7
Ask them why it didn't bother them when Trump mocked a disabled reporter, or made racist comments about the judge in his now-settled lawsuit, or lied continuously about matters big and small (my favorite was him saying the NFL sent a letter regarding the weeknight of the debate)?
I'll try to not paint all Trump supporters as racist, but I want to know why they were comfortable with all that he said and did. If the personality didn't bother them, but they don't want to be judged on voting for that personality, what policy of his did they support?
I haven't read a coherent comment, based on facts, from a Trump supporter on the reason for their support.
I'll try to not paint all Trump supporters as racist, but I want to know why they were comfortable with all that he said and did. If the personality didn't bother them, but they don't want to be judged on voting for that personality, what policy of his did they support?
I haven't read a coherent comment, based on facts, from a Trump supporter on the reason for their support.
7
The obvious response to your question has been restated ad nauseum. Clinton was the greater evil.
6
Like the Hollywood Kool Aid Drinkers in the Clinton Cult, The New York Times has been willfully blind to Hillary’s corruption, self-serving dishonesty and incompetence, blinded by a near religious belief in her inevitable right to be president. The Times demonstrated many of the characteristics of a cult: excessive zeal and unquestioning commitment to the cult; a distortion of reality to fit the cult’s world view; a smug elitism; the characterization of those opposed to the cult as stupid or evil and an emotional meltdown when the cult fails.
10
There was no coverage by the once fabled NY Times for this election. I gave up reading the Times 2-3 weeks after Trump started his run.
All the Times had was one sided made-up vitriol that had no foundation.There was no true reporting.
I think with Donald Trumps win by 300 Electoral votes, I think the voters made their point.
And major Mexican Investor Carlos Slim can't be happy, seeing his investment going down the tubes.
NOT GOOD!
All the Times had was one sided made-up vitriol that had no foundation.There was no true reporting.
I think with Donald Trumps win by 300 Electoral votes, I think the voters made their point.
And major Mexican Investor Carlos Slim can't be happy, seeing his investment going down the tubes.
NOT GOOD!
9
The voters made their point? Clinton won the popular vote by over 1.5 million votes. But that point doesn't count, eh?
4
No. It doesn't count. HC also won the popular vote against Obama but he won the EV. That didn't count either. It's like saying you should win the superbowl because your team made more passes during the game but ended up making fewer touchdowns. Hope that helps clear it up for you. If not, look at the EV map - it is 90% RED. No doubt he was the wanted one.
1
This election was a collection of disasters to be sure, but the Times indeed blew it. Should I ever end up pursuing academics more deeply I could do a thesis project or teach a course on what real manipulation looks like when studying your Bernie coverage - all through the eyes of the foregone Clinton conclusion. A masterclass in bad journalism parading as the real thing. The snark, the framing, the condescension was all there the whole time and no lessons were learned in the Trump coverage, even though you supposedly rededicated yourself during the general election season. You were playing a game that the country had largely moved on from. Patrick Healy especially, and to a lesser extent Amy Chozick either had editors with tunnel vision or were not appropriately challenged to fix their bug eyed angles.
4
Dear Ms Spayd, you found yourself wishing that you were on the line with someone from the editorial department. Aren't you? Isn't your function to take the concerns of readers to the NYT leadership? If they are not listening to you, what's the use?
Here's what was needed:
1. The Times focused too much on Trump as a funny story. There should have been investigative reporting about his businesses, taxes, lawsuits, etc- NYT did not give this any play until far too late. And, you should have been able to get access to his taxes.
2. In depth coverage of all the candidates was needed in the primary season. NYT decided who was important. You can do that on the editorial page, not in reporting.
3. NYT has the idea that anyone who is not a Democrat is a fool. What happened to the liberal ideas of multiple point of view, relativism, etc? Station a few reporters in, say, Fresno and see what you can find out.
Here's what was needed:
1. The Times focused too much on Trump as a funny story. There should have been investigative reporting about his businesses, taxes, lawsuits, etc- NYT did not give this any play until far too late. And, you should have been able to get access to his taxes.
2. In depth coverage of all the candidates was needed in the primary season. NYT decided who was important. You can do that on the editorial page, not in reporting.
3. NYT has the idea that anyone who is not a Democrat is a fool. What happened to the liberal ideas of multiple point of view, relativism, etc? Station a few reporters in, say, Fresno and see what you can find out.
2
Dear Ms. Spayd,
The NYT owes its subscribers an explanation why there were TWO versions of the letter from Messrs. Sulzberger and Baquet. The first version had a sentence on how the NYT had covered the election fairly. The second was the same except that sentence was removed.
Was this change the result of genuine reflection and self-awareness or was this pandering?
I wrote directly to you earlier about this bizarre behavior and received no reply or explanation.
Why won't you acknowledge this truth and explain the reasons for the deletion?
How do you not see the irony that you mentioned the Sulzberger/Baquet letter, but never discussed or explained that they were actually two letters?
If you represent the NYT's last, best hope to still be seen as a serious news agency and you don't see this as a blatant coverup, the NYT will be the next Daily News.
Seriously, if you can't acknowledge your own truth, the truth about your own behavior, how can we, the public, trust you to report on events you are not part of?
I now fear you are just another choir member, and nothing close to the NYT's ombudsman.
I have no plans to renew my subscription to the NYT.
Your paper is divisive and delusional and is a major reason the public distrusts the press.
The NYT owes its subscribers an explanation why there were TWO versions of the letter from Messrs. Sulzberger and Baquet. The first version had a sentence on how the NYT had covered the election fairly. The second was the same except that sentence was removed.
Was this change the result of genuine reflection and self-awareness or was this pandering?
I wrote directly to you earlier about this bizarre behavior and received no reply or explanation.
Why won't you acknowledge this truth and explain the reasons for the deletion?
How do you not see the irony that you mentioned the Sulzberger/Baquet letter, but never discussed or explained that they were actually two letters?
If you represent the NYT's last, best hope to still be seen as a serious news agency and you don't see this as a blatant coverup, the NYT will be the next Daily News.
Seriously, if you can't acknowledge your own truth, the truth about your own behavior, how can we, the public, trust you to report on events you are not part of?
I now fear you are just another choir member, and nothing close to the NYT's ombudsman.
I have no plans to renew my subscription to the NYT.
Your paper is divisive and delusional and is a major reason the public distrusts the press.
6
Of all the people and institutions that should be held accountable after the election, the Times is not one of them. It was the Times and the Washington Post who did the most substantive investigative work on candidates, issues, and campaigns. Fox News and Breitbart were sources of disinformation for those looking for reasons to like Trump, and so perhaps the real culprits are the many middling state-level TV stations and newspapers that focused briefly only on the most sensational moments of the campaign, but were otherwise silent about the less sensational, but frankly more worrisome issues that the Times and the Post reported on. You might have gotten to those a bit late, but then, it was hard to take Trump seriously--he had been for so a long a national joke, a New York-style side show that was strangely fascinating because he was so outrageously narcissistic. By all means, learn what you can from this experience, but there are many, many other news outlets who should be answerable even as they have made themselves more irrelevant than ever.
4
If more consideration is needed to prove the Times' liberal bias, one need look no further than the quality, quantity and vitriol of the anti-Trump readers' comments filtered an approved by the Times throughout the course of the campaign.
The Times routinely determined that reader comments that referred to Trump as "Drumpf", a "pig", "Adolf Trump", and "an idiot" were "generally...on-topic and not abusive."
I am sure that not a single reader comment was read, approved and published by the Times containing words that characterized Secretary Clinton as a farm animal nor as a mentally disabled person.
The Times routinely determined that reader comments that referred to Trump as "Drumpf", a "pig", "Adolf Trump", and "an idiot" were "generally...on-topic and not abusive."
I am sure that not a single reader comment was read, approved and published by the Times containing words that characterized Secretary Clinton as a farm animal nor as a mentally disabled person.
6
We all look forward to reading the NYT; but it is surely and certainly going! It will be good and timely, if the NYT brings down its regular columnists from their high horses. Some of them have become ridiculous, pure and simple; many are following an avowed agenda and they pontificate incessantly for their discredited and shallow causes. In short, time has come for this great newspaper to pause and think as to what it is trying to say, what it should say, and what it is actually saying. Readers have become more astute, the NYT must not lag behind! And now to begin with, the Election is over, we have a President Elect, and lets us talk about the much needed things that needed done!
5
The Sunday before the election I attended (for family reasons) a church service in Louisiana where the fiery sermon was all about the need to vote for Trump. I learned more about US politics in that one hour than I did in two years of reading The Times's election coverage obsessively.
The three specialist reporters who did the podcasts, for starters, need to be reassigned. Right now, if they told me it was Monday I would think it was Thursday.
The Times first of all made an equivalency between Hillary's old email server and Trumps constant lies.
But mostly, the paper was so sure of itself and so totally totally wrong., as we now see.
The three specialist reporters who did the podcasts, for starters, need to be reassigned. Right now, if they told me it was Monday I would think it was Thursday.
The Times first of all made an equivalency between Hillary's old email server and Trumps constant lies.
But mostly, the paper was so sure of itself and so totally totally wrong., as we now see.
2
My problem with the Times reporting was that it was so unabashedly for Hillary Clinton that it lulled a lot of potential voters into complacency. They stayed home. We needed serious coverage of both Democratic candidates, and once Clinton won the nomination, serious coverage of both candidates. Instead, Trump seemed to be held to a different standard, his supporters grossly caricatured. As for Clinton, we never moved beyond the emails. In our desire to make this a horse race, we all lose. It's time to treat the election with the seriousness it deserves. And as for a Trump presidency, it needs serious coverage, too.
1
If your heart races, as mine does, at the thought of a family discussion centering upon Trump's election win — and believe me the family Trumpets will be all a-gloat — breathe deeply and consider what you may want to ask during the unwanted and unwelcome, but inevitable, confab.
Perhaps I can help.
Here are my 10 questions at Thanksgiving for relatives who voted for Trump:
When did you dye your hair bright yellow?
Do you know your skin color is turning orange?
So you really do think you hid the fact that you are a racist from us for all these years?
Does driving that pick-up truck with a rifle rack in the back window make you feel real superior?
Was it in your sophomore year or your junior year when you dropped-out of high school?
Don't you think you should take off that red "Make America Great Again" baseball cap during Thanksgiving dinner?
Do you know that when you grin like that when talking about Trump your one good tooth really shows-up well?
Do you plan to use Obamacare to get treatment for your heroin addiction?
Did you lose your job at Chic-fil-a due to automation, numerous absences, or those damned Mexicans?
Is "Good food! Good meat! Thank you Lord! Let's eat!" still your Thanksgiving dinner prayer of choice?
Well, those are the 10!
And finally, remember: Never offer the benefit of the doubt, and never assume your Trump-totin' relatives have good intentions — they don't!
Good luck dealing with these less tasty turkeys! I sure hope this helps!
Perhaps I can help.
Here are my 10 questions at Thanksgiving for relatives who voted for Trump:
When did you dye your hair bright yellow?
Do you know your skin color is turning orange?
So you really do think you hid the fact that you are a racist from us for all these years?
Does driving that pick-up truck with a rifle rack in the back window make you feel real superior?
Was it in your sophomore year or your junior year when you dropped-out of high school?
Don't you think you should take off that red "Make America Great Again" baseball cap during Thanksgiving dinner?
Do you know that when you grin like that when talking about Trump your one good tooth really shows-up well?
Do you plan to use Obamacare to get treatment for your heroin addiction?
Did you lose your job at Chic-fil-a due to automation, numerous absences, or those damned Mexicans?
Is "Good food! Good meat! Thank you Lord! Let's eat!" still your Thanksgiving dinner prayer of choice?
Well, those are the 10!
And finally, remember: Never offer the benefit of the doubt, and never assume your Trump-totin' relatives have good intentions — they don't!
Good luck dealing with these less tasty turkeys! I sure hope this helps!
BINGO!
I detect bias in Liz Spayd's anlysis of bias in the NYT's campaign coverage. The election of someone as crude and ignorant as Donald Trump has upended who much of the country thinks we are as Americans. Nothing in it's aftermath has been more disheartening than reading journalists citing polls to tell us why the polls were wrong, pundits throwing data at each other from round tables in New York and Washington, and the Democratic apparatus deciding what they need now is a new Rust Belt strategy. Because ten white Trump supporters in North Carolina say they're not racists, does that mean they are not racist, or just that they're willing to elect an unrepentant bigot who avows racist policies and surrounds himself with white supremacists because they, what, want to pay less taxes? I used to get called by pollsters but I stopped answering them because they required true/false answers to questions the basic premises of which seemed specious. The NYT's doesn't need to know what we think. We need to know what the NYT's knows through fact-based investigation and reporting that pays no regard to what some poll tells you we might think or whether each candidate gets the exact same amount of negative versus positive ink.
3
There's been a lot of coverage, not just in the NY Times, analyzing Trump voters and speculating why they voted as they did. It seems none of them were in any way racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, or xenophobic; they just wanted change and were excited about what Donald Trump promised.
It boggles my mind that NY Times reporters and editors are so narrow-minded that they don't know any of these people. Didn't they follow his campaign and meet some of his supporters?
If they did get acquainted, they would know that many of the Trump voters are afflicted by those very deplorable attitudes. I say that as a longtime resident of a town and country that went enthusiastically for Donald Trump.
There is reason to criticize how Trump's campaign was covered. The Times never really mastered covering a campaign so grounded in lies and unrealistic promises. With the current attention on fake news and how rumors and lies go viral, it becomes apparent how so much misinformation penetrated the consciousness of both Trump and his voters. Dealing with this will be a major challenge for the future.
The way the Sanders campaign was reported was remarkable for how it basically denied his support until it was impossible to ignore his successes. I do not agree that it was because anyone decided that Clinton should be the candidate and win the election; it was more the improbability that Sanders would win so often and come so close in the end.
It boggles my mind that NY Times reporters and editors are so narrow-minded that they don't know any of these people. Didn't they follow his campaign and meet some of his supporters?
If they did get acquainted, they would know that many of the Trump voters are afflicted by those very deplorable attitudes. I say that as a longtime resident of a town and country that went enthusiastically for Donald Trump.
There is reason to criticize how Trump's campaign was covered. The Times never really mastered covering a campaign so grounded in lies and unrealistic promises. With the current attention on fake news and how rumors and lies go viral, it becomes apparent how so much misinformation penetrated the consciousness of both Trump and his voters. Dealing with this will be a major challenge for the future.
The way the Sanders campaign was reported was remarkable for how it basically denied his support until it was impossible to ignore his successes. I do not agree that it was because anyone decided that Clinton should be the candidate and win the election; it was more the improbability that Sanders would win so often and come so close in the end.
Shockingly, white people who voted for a racist because whatever they liked about him was more important than the vulnerable minorities he promises to harm do not see themselves as racist. Stop the presses.
Do you really not get that racism isn't always overt or even conscious? Why give someone like that credibility. Better to do a deep dive into why a nice lady from the south who I'm sure doesn't burn crosses doesn't see why voting for Trump is, in fact, a deeply racist act?
You can do much, much better.
Do you really not get that racism isn't always overt or even conscious? Why give someone like that credibility. Better to do a deep dive into why a nice lady from the south who I'm sure doesn't burn crosses doesn't see why voting for Trump is, in fact, a deeply racist act?
You can do much, much better.
8
Amen.
I may not have paid much attention to coverage of Clinton-Sanders, but I thought the coverage of Clinton-Trump was truly excellent. My thanks to the Times.
1
I honestly don't know what to think about the NYT at this point. In yesterday's paper the editor chose to downplay the 25 million dollar settlement that our President elect made for defrauding thousands of students with his fake school scam.
It was way down on the front page and was in fact, completely overshadowed by the Hamilton tweets that Trump used to distract people from news of the settlement. If you continue to let this man play you like you have I can't see subscribing anymore. If you whitewash and normalize his fascist behavior who else can we turn to for the truth.
False equivalency has led to this awful place we are in right now. Can you now see that 'both sides do it' is simply not true. We need good journalism now more than we ever and I hope that the NYT can rise to the challenge.
It was way down on the front page and was in fact, completely overshadowed by the Hamilton tweets that Trump used to distract people from news of the settlement. If you continue to let this man play you like you have I can't see subscribing anymore. If you whitewash and normalize his fascist behavior who else can we turn to for the truth.
False equivalency has led to this awful place we are in right now. Can you now see that 'both sides do it' is simply not true. We need good journalism now more than we ever and I hope that the NYT can rise to the challenge.
6
This column is through the looking glass. The Times helped elect Trump.
It had endless coverage of Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation and Wikileaks morsels (gasp! political operatives being political!). The Times found constant "clouds" and "shadows" around Hillary's campaign, even though in the end any purported wrongdoing was as ephemeral as those terms of art.
For better or worse, other media outlooks still look to the Times for guidance in how to weight stories. So the endless negative Hillary stories reverberated through the rest of the nation's news media.
The Times may not have taken Trump seriously for most of the campaign, but that worked in his favor because it didn't vet him the way it would other presidential candidates. It wasn't until a week AFTER the election that the Times finally got around to a front-page story on Trump's possible business conflicts. Already his trading on the office is becoming a dominant theme of his presidency. Maybe the Times can follow the Washington Post to keep up on that topic.
It had endless coverage of Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation and Wikileaks morsels (gasp! political operatives being political!). The Times found constant "clouds" and "shadows" around Hillary's campaign, even though in the end any purported wrongdoing was as ephemeral as those terms of art.
For better or worse, other media outlooks still look to the Times for guidance in how to weight stories. So the endless negative Hillary stories reverberated through the rest of the nation's news media.
The Times may not have taken Trump seriously for most of the campaign, but that worked in his favor because it didn't vet him the way it would other presidential candidates. It wasn't until a week AFTER the election that the Times finally got around to a front-page story on Trump's possible business conflicts. Already his trading on the office is becoming a dominant theme of his presidency. Maybe the Times can follow the Washington Post to keep up on that topic.
48
Couldn't agree more. Once the Times endorsed Clinton, their hatchets came out against her. With friends like that, who needs Wikileaks?
The guy complaining about 50 years of the old guard and the need for fresh voices may as well have voted Trump, as that appears to be the reasoning many people used to vote that way.
Who cares what the content is as long as it's "fresh," huh? Good luck with that.
The guy complaining about 50 years of the old guard and the need for fresh voices may as well have voted Trump, as that appears to be the reasoning many people used to vote that way.
Who cares what the content is as long as it's "fresh," huh? Good luck with that.
3
Your politics have distorted your views. I have the same politics. Still. it is obvious to me that the negative Clinton stories merely stated the facts. And they fairly balanced what was newsworthy and what was not. Developments in the email investigation and concerns about the Cllintons' foundation couldn't be ignored. Remember, before there was a campaign, 60% of the electorate had negative views of Clinton. That wasn't the Times doing. Nor did the negative view of her change that much during the campaign. And as for Trump, if you didn't see the anti-Trump stories it's because the endless barrage of them wasn't enough for you.
4
I woke up this morning with the intention to write a similar response as that of Ann Arbor. My first impulse was to think that the New York Times served as a Rorschach test for American mindsets. But absolutely not. Thank you Ann Arbor for doing the heavy work this morning to outline the NYT's endless critical reporting on Clinton affairs and tepid coverage of Trump's conflict of interests. One, of course, could also take note of the hyper-critical opinion pages against Clinton by Bruni and Dowd.
1
The first step in solving a problem is first recognizing you have one. The NYTs has failed to take this first step, so any 'plan' to improve is pointless.
31
Perfectly succinct. Thank you.
1
Those women in North Carolina can complain all they want, but it won't change the fact that they voted for a racist, sexist homophobic demagogue. They can dress that up however they want, but the fact will remain, and The New York Times should steer clear of trying to exonerate them or appease them.
Much of The Times' coverage of this election was appalling. I've never seen such smugness in what were supposed to be news articles rather than opinion., especially with respect to Bernie Sanders.
Special mention goes to Maggie Haberman, who lacks the requisite breadth of experience and knowledge to cover a presidential campaign. Some of her pronouncements, especially during live coverage, were so wrong-headed, opinionated, and naive that it was hard to take her seriously.
All that said, The Times finally seemed to get with the program late in the season, in that it finally appeared to understand the role it had played in supporting a demagogue. We expect better things of you. The country badly needs you to be on your game going forward.
Much of The Times' coverage of this election was appalling. I've never seen such smugness in what were supposed to be news articles rather than opinion., especially with respect to Bernie Sanders.
Special mention goes to Maggie Haberman, who lacks the requisite breadth of experience and knowledge to cover a presidential campaign. Some of her pronouncements, especially during live coverage, were so wrong-headed, opinionated, and naive that it was hard to take her seriously.
All that said, The Times finally seemed to get with the program late in the season, in that it finally appeared to understand the role it had played in supporting a demagogue. We expect better things of you. The country badly needs you to be on your game going forward.
20
I actually wrote to the Times about Ms Haberman's coverage of the primary debates. I was following their blow by blow descriptions of a debate between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton was talking over and interrupting Sanders, and he was doing it back.
Ms Haberman noted only that Sanders was doing it, completely ignoring that Clinton was as well. It was absolutely biased reporting.
Ms Haberman noted only that Sanders was doing it, completely ignoring that Clinton was as well. It was absolutely biased reporting.
17
dpr, you're too generous. Ms. Haberman along with some other Times reporters not only lacks knowledge and experience, she downright flaunts her lack of knowledge by refusing to look anything up. All Times political reporters should be forced to take long courses in 20th century political history. Then they wouldn't say things so idiotic as to make a reasonably informed reader wince.
4
And no matter how much you distill it, Clinton still lost the Electoral College and name shaming likely lost rather than gain for Democrats the margins they need in the mid-west.
1
The question is, will the Times seriously recommit to authentic journalistic principles, or stay committed to their free fall into total untrustworthiness as an unbiased source of news. I can tell you this, reading any of the comments sections, (particularly from last night's article about Pence/Hamilton) I do not not see a change coming. Browsing through 999 comments, there were many who felt as I did, that the Hamilton cast was being self-serving and rude. Yet, of all the Times' "Picks", I only saw one comment chosen out of many dozens that represented this view. Every other comment was an angry parrot comment reflecting hate and disgust towards Trump/Pence. I have one foot out the door already in a search for a different go-to news source.
11
A question. Did you find the birther movement as offensive as you do the cast of Hamilton? Do you think they were rude to the president of the United States? I'm gonna take a wild guess. You didn't.
3
Thank you for your honesty. It is refreshing after the deluge of political misinformation that we have been subjected to by the media in general during this recent election. Freedom of the Press is one of our cherished freedoms, and its abuse is very demoralizing. If we can't trust the media, where do we turn?
2
The Times flogged the nonsensical email scandal over and over again long after it was obviously an entrapment by her political enemies: Mrs. Clinton, have you stopped beating your wife? While somehow overlooking that we know for a fact that a foreign power put its thumb on the scale in an American election and brought an outrageously unqualified, corrupt and unstable person into the White House. How is that not the front page story EVERY DAY? How do we still not know the extent of Russia's involvement in the election? I've been reading the Times since I was a little girl and I've never been so disappointed and disheartened by their coverage.
29
Perhaps we do not know of the extent of Russia's involvement in the election because it was nonexistent. It is interesting that the reader knows as a fact that a foreign power puts its thumb on the scale when there has been no specific evidence produced to support that fact. At most, there was an unsupported assertion by the "intelligence community" that it believed this to be the case - without any evidence presented.
4
You may wish to suggest that more reporters report on the small towns and cities of 50K or less inside the Appalachians. During Obama's tenure I remember 3-4 investigative reports in smaller towns like one on taxation and subsidies in a small town north of St Paul, MN. There was one on Flint and water and New Orleans and schools. But even New Orleans is the big city of Louisiana. so it really doesn't qualify. All the red states are states of 1-2 large cities and everything else is 50K or 200 in population with people living in farm house outside the towns and working 10-50 miles away--if one can find a job. Water qualities, farming problems--not corporation farms-- need for training and jobs in technology and alternate energy. Why ship to Kansas the wind energy pieces from Maine that can be made in Kansas or Missouri?? There are all kinds of problems in all 48 contingent states but only a dozen show up regularly--just NJ or NC. There are dozens more but your reporters must go out and find them. I may live in CA but grew up and have family in Sterling, IL (18,000) with a lost steel mill and no metal factories that had been there in the 50's but left or died in the 80's--as did my father's piece mill.
4
I am curious about Cindy Capwell's thoughts on the endorsement of Donald Trump's campaign by the KKK's newspaper, the Crusader. What does she think about the endorsement of Donald Trump by The Daily Stormer (Neo-Nazi news site) thirteen days after Mr. Trump announced he was running for the presidency? Mr. Trump has spoken against gay marriage and wants the Supreme Court to reverse its decision and leave it to the states. What does Ms Capwell think about that? What does she think of a Muslim registry? By voting for Mr. Trump, these 10 women give tacit approval to all of the above.
I don't think the Times should let Trump supporter's hurt feelings affect reporting on Trump's political appointees and the policies they are proposing.
I don't think the Times should let Trump supporter's hurt feelings affect reporting on Trump's political appointees and the policies they are proposing.
28
I see your point. But as long as you're blaming Trump for being supported by these groups, then you can blame Hillary for accepting all those millions from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both notoriously anti-gay and anti-women's rights.
I give it as much thought as I do the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the father of the terrorist who killed 50 gay Americans.
4
You are engaging in a logical falacy. Just because the KKK endorses Trump, that does not imply that Trump endorses the KKK. Hilliary was endorsed by the Communist Party this year. Do you believe that means that Hillary is a communist?
5
I find the readers comments most interesting. There is a perspective that in order to be fair more the Times should have just had a broader coverage of the Democrst candidates. Maintain the bias towards the Republicans, just give Bernie a more fair chance.
Nothing more revealing is how long polls have indicated people believe we are going in the wrong direction. This started in 2009. Then the midterm election of 2010 was a wake up and the 2012 midterm an earthquake of sentiment. Of course all of these were ignored by the Times. You never evaluated, considered, these simple realities. As long as Obama was ramming his policies home.
Yes, the reporting has been horrible. The shine is off the Democrat Party. Regardless of how you smear Republicans, people have been deciding for quite a while they are a better alternative to Democrats. Ignoring this has landed Trump in the White House and the country in control of the Republican Party.
Nothing more revealing is how long polls have indicated people believe we are going in the wrong direction. This started in 2009. Then the midterm election of 2010 was a wake up and the 2012 midterm an earthquake of sentiment. Of course all of these were ignored by the Times. You never evaluated, considered, these simple realities. As long as Obama was ramming his policies home.
Yes, the reporting has been horrible. The shine is off the Democrat Party. Regardless of how you smear Republicans, people have been deciding for quite a while they are a better alternative to Democrats. Ignoring this has landed Trump in the White House and the country in control of the Republican Party.
8
That's apparently your perspective from Ohio. My perspective, from the PNW, is exactly the opposite of yours. I do not see the country's mood, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Time's role (unconsciously tilted against Clinton and for Trump) at all the way you do. Curious.
1
Here's an example of how you continue to soft-pedal Trump's transgressions while you blew Clinton's up out of all proportion. So, did the Times, despite its editorials want to sabotage the Clinton campaign to bring in the era of Trump? It's the same thing Russia did, apparently -- just wanted to weaken her, not kill her. Or is this the double standard for treating women v. men?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/20/1602315/-After-a-year-of-hype...
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/20/1602315/-After-a-year-of-hype...
8
Journalism is not supposed to appease the feelings of people who don't like the way the news comes out. Nobody made Trump say the outlandish things he said. Nobody made his supporters say and do some of the vicious things they said and did. It all happened naturally, and the Times naturally reported on it.
The last thing Yhe New York Times needs to start doing now is looking the other way out of some desire to make more people comfortable with its reportage. In this new age, when a bile-spewing demagogue has the keys to the White House and regressive right-wingers control Congress, the Times needs to be even more vigilant about reporting the truth and holding the power brokers to task.
The only defense against power gone amok is a free and vigilant press. If that hurts some Americans' feelings, too bad.
The last thing Yhe New York Times needs to start doing now is looking the other way out of some desire to make more people comfortable with its reportage. In this new age, when a bile-spewing demagogue has the keys to the White House and regressive right-wingers control Congress, the Times needs to be even more vigilant about reporting the truth and holding the power brokers to task.
The only defense against power gone amok is a free and vigilant press. If that hurts some Americans' feelings, too bad.
27
I can agree that LESS coverage is needed.
Let's check the subscription numbers after the free trial periods expire.
5
Wow, there are a lot of comments saying the exact same thing in almost the exact same words. Was a talking points memo sent to all Trump voters? Did it include the "free trial period" thing? You folks look downright organized, like you got together and decided exactly what to say in unison. I thought only politicians do things like that. Anyway, who cares how many subscribers the Times has? Why are you folks so obsessed with it?
1
I guess I'm the odd woman out here. I, too, have felt all along that the Times' coverage of the campaign was skewed and I found Mr. Sulzberger's letter smug and self-congratulatory. I guess I missed the part about self-reflection. However, I found the skewing of coverage in the opposite direction. The Times followed Donald Trump around like a mindless puppy, covering every dreadful thing he said or did as long--I assume--as it sold papers. Donald Trump is a creature of the media and the media obliged by keeping him in the public eye. It was only in the final lap of the campaign that the Times began to drill down on his failure to pay taxes, his bankruptcies, the careless ruining of employees' lives. There was barely any mention of the shameful situation at Trump University, and even his recent settlement was relegated to the left-hand column. On the other hand, the issue of Clinton's emails never failed to make front and center and when Comey's first letter came out the headline blared the news as if her guilt were already decided by the very fact of the emails. Later op-ed pieces condemning Comey's clearly partisan action, just didn't do the trick. Even all us elite readers of your paper often glance at the headlines and rush off to work. The damage was done. Clinton took her usual beating. Your reporting was inexcusable. Mr. Sulzberger's letter was obscene. Clean it up, NYTimes!!
27
Exactly. I agree with you 100%. The Times culture eems to automatically cater to the rich, and Mr. Trump is one of those rich types they like to fawn all over.
Why else would they marginalize climate change reporting -- my guess is that they don't want to offend the Koch Bros, who provided the money to redo the dance theater. It's as simple as that.
Why else would they marginalize climate change reporting -- my guess is that they don't want to offend the Koch Bros, who provided the money to redo the dance theater. It's as simple as that.
1
The best response I've heard to people who "voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim" came from Hasan Minhaj on The Daily Show. He said: "What you're telling me is 'you don't hate me, you just don't *care* about me.'" The Times held up a mirror to such voters. If they don't like what they see it's *they* who need to change, not the mirror.
19
Should Hillary voters be similarly charged with "not caring" about the tens of thousands dead as a result of her spurious war in Libya?
The very real segment of Trump supporters motivated by racial bias deserves every bit of censure they receive, but ignoring the fact that racism, while seen as unpleasant, just wasn't the biggest factor for some people is what left journalists so blindsided in the first place.
The very real segment of Trump supporters motivated by racial bias deserves every bit of censure they receive, but ignoring the fact that racism, while seen as unpleasant, just wasn't the biggest factor for some people is what left journalists so blindsided in the first place.
1
Ms Spayd: Not one mention of Jim Ruttenberg's front page column absolving journalists from the need to be objective? How can the NYT expect to be "the paper of record" with such a blatant disregard for injecting bias in even supposedly fact-based straight reporting?
The Times has created an echo chamber within its reporter / editor ranks and the majority of its readers (most read articles, reader-chosen comments). Who cares what most readers "like"given the liberal bent of the paper and readers, I'd rather read the articles that are the most disliked, ones that the paper hesitated to run. At least then there would be a shot at reading opposing views and perspectives.
And a word to readers who trash those who have views different from their own: you demonstrate a bigotry and narrow-mindedness that is truly appalling. Get out of your bubble and try to understand others -- on that point Ms Spayd is spot on.
The Times has created an echo chamber within its reporter / editor ranks and the majority of its readers (most read articles, reader-chosen comments). Who cares what most readers "like"given the liberal bent of the paper and readers, I'd rather read the articles that are the most disliked, ones that the paper hesitated to run. At least then there would be a shot at reading opposing views and perspectives.
And a word to readers who trash those who have views different from their own: you demonstrate a bigotry and narrow-mindedness that is truly appalling. Get out of your bubble and try to understand others -- on that point Ms Spayd is spot on.
19
.
.
This election, and one ticket, was so unusual that apolitical publications took a stand. Vogue Magazine (first-ever endorsement), Scientific American, Nature Magazine, USA Today (has never endorsed a Presidential ticket), The Atlantic (endorsed a national ticket 3 years after its founding, and in 1964, and this year, but in no other year): These and HUNDREDS of other publications urged their readers not to vote for Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence.
The Arizona Republic, which had endorsed Republican tickets in every presidential election, endorsed the Democratic ticket for the first time. There were many death threats, including at least one that referred to a Republic reporter who was car-bombed in the 1970s.
That's how important the election was. That's how dangerous the media thought one candidate was.
So of course NYT covered this campaign differently.
To all the Southerners/Westerners/Midwesterners who feel their regions were misrepresented, I say this: The members of the Editorial Board at your local newspaper probably live IN your community. They certainly had access to news reports produced by reporters who spoke to voters IN your area. Yet Editorial Boards in every corner of the nation implored readers: Do not vote for Donald Trump. So please don't blame NYT for ignoring you. Have you paid enough attention to the Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, and others who live in NYC?
What message should they take away from a Trump victory?
Why the swastikas at Trump rallies?
.
This election, and one ticket, was so unusual that apolitical publications took a stand. Vogue Magazine (first-ever endorsement), Scientific American, Nature Magazine, USA Today (has never endorsed a Presidential ticket), The Atlantic (endorsed a national ticket 3 years after its founding, and in 1964, and this year, but in no other year): These and HUNDREDS of other publications urged their readers not to vote for Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence.
The Arizona Republic, which had endorsed Republican tickets in every presidential election, endorsed the Democratic ticket for the first time. There were many death threats, including at least one that referred to a Republic reporter who was car-bombed in the 1970s.
That's how important the election was. That's how dangerous the media thought one candidate was.
So of course NYT covered this campaign differently.
To all the Southerners/Westerners/Midwesterners who feel their regions were misrepresented, I say this: The members of the Editorial Board at your local newspaper probably live IN your community. They certainly had access to news reports produced by reporters who spoke to voters IN your area. Yet Editorial Boards in every corner of the nation implored readers: Do not vote for Donald Trump. So please don't blame NYT for ignoring you. Have you paid enough attention to the Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, and others who live in NYC?
What message should they take away from a Trump victory?
Why the swastikas at Trump rallies?
18
Actually, local newspapers more and more are owned by corporations that are not locally based.
1
The comments to this half-hearted acknowledgment that the NY Times was far less than objective in its coverage of the presidential election and missed seeing the obvious reality that large segments of the public actually noticed clear bias in the reporting of the mainstream media do not bode well for the Times. It is apparent from these comments that what remains of the dwindeling readership of the Times consists of disgruntled progressives, including those who inexpicably saw the reporting to be biased against Clinton and those who are only concerned with bias vis-a-vis the more extreme candidate of the left, Bernie Sanders. Such complete misunderstanding by as to why Trump voters and others have turned their backs on the mainstream media for being far too sympathetic to the American left can only accelerate the demise of any media sources which are similarly incapable of gaging and fairly reporting on broader sentiments, even those with which they do not agree.
5
Glad to see this column. Right after Trump won I kept thinking of that "Upshot" infographic bar that had appeared in seemingly every political article for months, always assuring readers of a Clinton victory. I let the overwhelming chances for Clinton lull me into complacency. The coverage of Bernie Sanders also contributed to a false sense of Clinton's inevitability. I hope NYT's coverage will evolve and improve in the future. Please take the other side seriously, even if it isn't the establishment liberal view. We need to know what's going on out there.
5
You don't have to be racist, homophobic, sexist, and anti muslim to vote for Trump, but you have to be ok with all those things which is really just as bad. And, it's not the extreme fringe of his supporters, it's Trump himself. Just look at the people he is bringing into the administration.
The front page today perfectly captured the failed coverage of the NYT. In the last 48 hours our President Elect has settled a 25 million dollar fraud suit and his DC hotel has held a reception for foreign dignitaries to encourage them to stay there when doing business with the President. But what is the main above the fold news item. Romney leaving the golf club. Page 20 before you get to reports about those items.
The front page today perfectly captured the failed coverage of the NYT. In the last 48 hours our President Elect has settled a 25 million dollar fraud suit and his DC hotel has held a reception for foreign dignitaries to encourage them to stay there when doing business with the President. But what is the main above the fold news item. Romney leaving the golf club. Page 20 before you get to reports about those items.
9
Finally someone at the New York Times might understand that -- there is intelligent, honest thought outside the bubble of the cultural left -- and that, to a person offended by politically correct censorship, the New York Times appears extremely biased – like something edited by a priesthood of the cultural left. In article after article on virtually any issues on which political correctness takes a strong stand, the Times ignores or substantially downplays important, but politically incorrect truths.
One offensive example was your paper’s coverage of Michael Brown murder in Ferguson, Missouri, and the demand for Officer Wilson’s punishment which followed. Your paper grossly underplayed the evidence that Officer Wilson shooting was justified. There was substantial evidence Wilson’s shooting was, in fact, probably justified within a week or two after the incidence, and yet for more than three months your paper propagandistically supported the movement demanding his head. To the best of my knowledge your paper never ran a headline or story that pointed out that the majority of the evidence indicated Wilson was innocent. Instead you ran hundred of titles, article, and editorials suggesting he was guilty.
That’s racism. That’s injustice. That’s bad journalism.
One offensive example was your paper’s coverage of Michael Brown murder in Ferguson, Missouri, and the demand for Officer Wilson’s punishment which followed. Your paper grossly underplayed the evidence that Officer Wilson shooting was justified. There was substantial evidence Wilson’s shooting was, in fact, probably justified within a week or two after the incidence, and yet for more than three months your paper propagandistically supported the movement demanding his head. To the best of my knowledge your paper never ran a headline or story that pointed out that the majority of the evidence indicated Wilson was innocent. Instead you ran hundred of titles, article, and editorials suggesting he was guilty.
That’s racism. That’s injustice. That’s bad journalism.
13
besides having no belief that anyone will read this there is insufficient space (even in my brain) to document my frustration with NYTs prez race 2016 coverage (beginning @ start of 2015). While theoretically challenging a DT presidency NYTs legitimized an irrational campaign from the very beginning.
Part of the legitimizing was in the way HRC was covered. Not implying that she or her campaign should have been trashed but the real concerns of individuals that would have a very difficult time voting for her were never adequately addressed. (A side bar analysis would be to compare how Bigley O was covered early on with Sen. Sander's coverage). Part of DT & HRC coverage is NYTs' bicoastal myopia. Even when you grudgingly acknowledge the 'fly over' NYT lacks 'boots on the ground' to internally understand what's going one.
I've been a big fan of Nate Silver for a long time (know he's no longer affiliated with NYT) but I was convinced that his polls in PA, OH, MI, even NC were clearly inaccurate . . . word I used for months was 'just wrong'.
even the post election scramble is more pathetic than accurate.
& I had no problem voting for HRC. In 2015 my word for the Clitons & company, et al was 'fatigued'. I would have wanted almost any other legitimate candidate to challenge Ted Cruz & co. I didn't 'fea' DT until Jan 2016. I could have easily voted for Sen. Sanders even while I am not enthusiasic about his prescriptions . . . ah well at least 4 more yr. of fake news
Part of the legitimizing was in the way HRC was covered. Not implying that she or her campaign should have been trashed but the real concerns of individuals that would have a very difficult time voting for her were never adequately addressed. (A side bar analysis would be to compare how Bigley O was covered early on with Sen. Sander's coverage). Part of DT & HRC coverage is NYTs' bicoastal myopia. Even when you grudgingly acknowledge the 'fly over' NYT lacks 'boots on the ground' to internally understand what's going one.
I've been a big fan of Nate Silver for a long time (know he's no longer affiliated with NYT) but I was convinced that his polls in PA, OH, MI, even NC were clearly inaccurate . . . word I used for months was 'just wrong'.
even the post election scramble is more pathetic than accurate.
& I had no problem voting for HRC. In 2015 my word for the Clitons & company, et al was 'fatigued'. I would have wanted almost any other legitimate candidate to challenge Ted Cruz & co. I didn't 'fea' DT until Jan 2016. I could have easily voted for Sen. Sanders even while I am not enthusiasic about his prescriptions . . . ah well at least 4 more yr. of fake news
1
In addition to the false equivalence that I wrote about earlier, we can also start by meeting the right's complaints of political correctness head-on.
Had The Times and other respected news organizations called Trump's statements for what they were on Day 1: lies - he wouldn't have had the time to impose his real intent and agenda on the people.
I don't say this lightly: the media needs to stop walking gingerly around issues as salient as this. Trump was lying and the media including The Times was coquettishly using words like: innovative bluffing or creativity with the truth.
He walked all over the media after that and just loudly and blatantly started lying without any fear of any consequences. And is now destroying media credibility.
Same goes for the alt-right movement. It's not some undecipherable key on your keyboard. nothing as cute or mysterious as that. It's white nationalism and its ugly, abhorrent, and un-American.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Had The Times and other respected news organizations called Trump's statements for what they were on Day 1: lies - he wouldn't have had the time to impose his real intent and agenda on the people.
I don't say this lightly: the media needs to stop walking gingerly around issues as salient as this. Trump was lying and the media including The Times was coquettishly using words like: innovative bluffing or creativity with the truth.
He walked all over the media after that and just loudly and blatantly started lying without any fear of any consequences. And is now destroying media credibility.
Same goes for the alt-right movement. It's not some undecipherable key on your keyboard. nothing as cute or mysterious as that. It's white nationalism and its ugly, abhorrent, and un-American.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
15
See Ms. Spayd's infamous essay on when to call a lie, a lie. Just read the comment -- for logic and honest writing.
1
"...won't get fooled again." -George W Bush
2
"Last week, President-elect Donald J. Trump jumped in, tweeting that The Times had lost thousands of subscribers since the election. The paper quite the opposite is the case: It reports having the largest one-week subscription increase since the first week of the digital pay model, in 2011."
Public editor: please clarify. What were the numbers of print subscribers and the number of online subscribers before the election and after the election?
Public editor: please clarify. What were the numbers of print subscribers and the number of online subscribers before the election and after the election?
4
While the Times and other newspapers might have done a better job reporting on the Trump voter, I doubt that’s what the North Carolina women and other supporters really want. They want to be able to support a candidate who makes bigoted remarks, cheers torture and denies global warming, but then distance themselves from his positions. While it’s true, as Nicholas Kristof wrote, that not all Trump supporters are “bigoted monsters,” what should we call the roughly two thirds of them who think Obama is a Muslin or wasn’t born in the U.S? Merely misinformed?
Much has been written by the Times and other papers about the grievances of Trump supporters in places like Youngstown, Ohio, often with a sympathetic angle. If the country lurches from one crisis to the next under a Trump presidency, let’s hope the newspapers hold his supporters accountable. No grievance – real or imagined – justified support for someone so unfit for the White House.
Much has been written by the Times and other papers about the grievances of Trump supporters in places like Youngstown, Ohio, often with a sympathetic angle. If the country lurches from one crisis to the next under a Trump presidency, let’s hope the newspapers hold his supporters accountable. No grievance – real or imagined – justified support for someone so unfit for the White House.
8
Agreed. I have written to the Times on several occasions to make this point.
The mandate is fair and objective reporting. The Times chooses to do stories which show Trump in a bad light. If I as a Clinton supporter feel this way, what do the supporters and undecided think? Instead of reprinting articles with the negative Trump theme the reporters should have been visiting the rust belt states and yes North Carolina as well. By the way I would be interested in why those ladies in North Carolina did vote for Trump. Acknowledging them is a start but visiting them is a beginning.
The mandate is fair and objective reporting. The Times chooses to do stories which show Trump in a bad light. If I as a Clinton supporter feel this way, what do the supporters and undecided think? Instead of reprinting articles with the negative Trump theme the reporters should have been visiting the rust belt states and yes North Carolina as well. By the way I would be interested in why those ladies in North Carolina did vote for Trump. Acknowledging them is a start but visiting them is a beginning.
6
Trump puts himself in a bad light. The Times has barely scratched the surface. Today they put a story on Trump's meeting with his Indian business partners (during his transition) on page 20. They gave him a big break.
1
The New York Times grossly underestimates the damage you have done by deceiving your readers for no apparent reason than to shill for your preferred candidate. You sold your integrity and considerable influence so cheaply that I am embarrassed for you. After finding out that you had an intentional back room policy of biased news coverage, many people will never view journalism coming from the NYT with anything other than suspicion.
You are media equivalent of the trusted dentist who drills healthy teeth or the auto mechanic who does an expensive repair on a sound engine. I hope you will stop defrauding your readers with propaganda now, but I am not particularly hopeful.
You are media equivalent of the trusted dentist who drills healthy teeth or the auto mechanic who does an expensive repair on a sound engine. I hope you will stop defrauding your readers with propaganda now, but I am not particularly hopeful.
11
We need a better balance between listening to people whose views may not agree with ours and making sure that there is no false equivalence - as the right always manages to successfully play the liberals.
Case in point: the Clinton email story was covered from 100 angles while Trump actually has 100 sins. Guess whose faults and sins people remembered? Who was deemed less Truthful: Clinton who lied 27% of the time or Trump who lied 71% of the time (as analyzed objectively by Politico)?
Trump's greatest con in the campaign was to use the media to discredit the media. He played the so-called elite media intellectuals like a flute. I think the media needs as much humility and accountability for their hubris and selfishness in covering Trump as the bankers did in 2008 for destroying the economy.
To the 10 women who claim they are not bigoted or racist or anti-Muslim: it's possible. But, do we know anyone who sees themselves as that way? The racist shouting "ape in heels", Jeff Sessions saying "boy... you need to be watchful", Bannon calling his vile ideology as "economic nationalism" and not "white nationalism" are but a few examples.
Also, can they explain the difference between being a bigot versus supporting a candidate who is one? Is it like the have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too Republicans who were voting for Trump but not endorsing him?
America revealed itself in this election. And, the ugliness pains some of us to the core.
Case in point: the Clinton email story was covered from 100 angles while Trump actually has 100 sins. Guess whose faults and sins people remembered? Who was deemed less Truthful: Clinton who lied 27% of the time or Trump who lied 71% of the time (as analyzed objectively by Politico)?
Trump's greatest con in the campaign was to use the media to discredit the media. He played the so-called elite media intellectuals like a flute. I think the media needs as much humility and accountability for their hubris and selfishness in covering Trump as the bankers did in 2008 for destroying the economy.
To the 10 women who claim they are not bigoted or racist or anti-Muslim: it's possible. But, do we know anyone who sees themselves as that way? The racist shouting "ape in heels", Jeff Sessions saying "boy... you need to be watchful", Bannon calling his vile ideology as "economic nationalism" and not "white nationalism" are but a few examples.
Also, can they explain the difference between being a bigot versus supporting a candidate who is one? Is it like the have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too Republicans who were voting for Trump but not endorsing him?
America revealed itself in this election. And, the ugliness pains some of us to the core.
10
I canceled my digital subscription late last year because of your coverage of Sen. Sanders. The Times is obviously a very, very editor-driven publication: the editor determines the "narrative", and the reporters are sent out like little worker-bees to write along that line. It's extremely easy to recognize the patterns if you read this paper day to day. I remember when The Times finally started covering Sen. Sanders's campaign, every interviewee was made out to look like a moron who didn't have a clue -- because that was the narrative. "These kids are young and naive, and they don't know what it takes to be successful in Washington like Mrs. Clinton."
The Times took the same tack with Trump supporters in the general. You established the narrative that you had to be a despicable person to support a despicable candidate, and the only "Trump supporter perspective" we got was from people who agreed to wear their racism on their sleeve in front of a Times reporter. The Times never made any attempt to discover or convey what their motivations really were, what their lives were like, what their daily challenges were. You were all-in with the Clinton campaign's shame game.
Cover the issues. That's what people need to see. You have a civic responsibility. The horse race obsession is seemingly always wrong, so just drop it. And for goodness sake, stop dancing to Trump's tune. Yesterday he obscured coverage of his $25mn settlement by making a dumb Tweet. And you let him!
The Times took the same tack with Trump supporters in the general. You established the narrative that you had to be a despicable person to support a despicable candidate, and the only "Trump supporter perspective" we got was from people who agreed to wear their racism on their sleeve in front of a Times reporter. The Times never made any attempt to discover or convey what their motivations really were, what their lives were like, what their daily challenges were. You were all-in with the Clinton campaign's shame game.
Cover the issues. That's what people need to see. You have a civic responsibility. The horse race obsession is seemingly always wrong, so just drop it. And for goodness sake, stop dancing to Trump's tune. Yesterday he obscured coverage of his $25mn settlement by making a dumb Tweet. And you let him!
10
Excellent analysis and spot on.
".. letter to subscribers that was in part an attempt to assure readers there was some self-reflection going on in the newsroom about its coverage. It included a vow to “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences…” But they also used the occasion to congratulate themselves on their swift, agile and creative coverage on election night, and they praised their journalism as fair to both candidates and unflinching in its scrutiny."
Surefire, if it weren't aginst the previous proclaim by mr. bquet of doing less and less, i quote from this very page of "the public editor", "news for the record", meaning that the Times was going to have "an opinion" on the facts, and to attach it to them as quickly as the election year ensued. That generated obviuously disagreement over how to cover the two side of the democratic primary, and how to treat mr. Trump during and after the Republican convention ( i still praise how the NYT covered mr. Cruz's ideological unbreakable stance of not endorsing mr. Trump, even at the gop's convention, only to finally bend, or crush before him subsequently. That's "follow the news to its bitter end" approach ).
I just wish to see less "Outrage! Mr. Trump is appointing another one of his cabinet, and that's not a democrat" titles. It's Trump's presidency, deal with it
Surefire, if it weren't aginst the previous proclaim by mr. bquet of doing less and less, i quote from this very page of "the public editor", "news for the record", meaning that the Times was going to have "an opinion" on the facts, and to attach it to them as quickly as the election year ensued. That generated obviuously disagreement over how to cover the two side of the democratic primary, and how to treat mr. Trump during and after the Republican convention ( i still praise how the NYT covered mr. Cruz's ideological unbreakable stance of not endorsing mr. Trump, even at the gop's convention, only to finally bend, or crush before him subsequently. That's "follow the news to its bitter end" approach ).
I just wish to see less "Outrage! Mr. Trump is appointing another one of his cabinet, and that's not a democrat" titles. It's Trump's presidency, deal with it
4
The Times failed on its pre-election coverage and now is failing on its post-election coverage
I feel like the Times did a horrible job not doing the hard work of understanding who Trump is and who his voters were. Nate Cohn in particular was a failure if epic proportions.
Full disclosure - I am a Hillary supporter and Democrat - but I find the coverage of Trump shrill and over eager to find fault. The effect is to miss the point of the threat he poses to America.
Op-ed writers were mostly useless this election cycle. Maureen Dowd spent excessive energy exercising her incredible talent for snark instead of thoughtful dissection of the failures of both candidates.
David Brooks as always over intellectualized and showed no ability to step out of the bubble he operates in
And now the Times is spending energy reporting the threat of fake news. I would argue their "real" news did more damage than any fake news - in terms of possible voter suppression in thinking Hillary was a slam dunk and now in magnifying every small issue with Trump and losing the overall picture of the vile environment he is creating
The Times needs to clean house.
I feel like the Times did a horrible job not doing the hard work of understanding who Trump is and who his voters were. Nate Cohn in particular was a failure if epic proportions.
Full disclosure - I am a Hillary supporter and Democrat - but I find the coverage of Trump shrill and over eager to find fault. The effect is to miss the point of the threat he poses to America.
Op-ed writers were mostly useless this election cycle. Maureen Dowd spent excessive energy exercising her incredible talent for snark instead of thoughtful dissection of the failures of both candidates.
David Brooks as always over intellectualized and showed no ability to step out of the bubble he operates in
And now the Times is spending energy reporting the threat of fake news. I would argue their "real" news did more damage than any fake news - in terms of possible voter suppression in thinking Hillary was a slam dunk and now in magnifying every small issue with Trump and losing the overall picture of the vile environment he is creating
The Times needs to clean house.
16
Whether certain of Trump's supporters see themselves as personally racist or not does not excuse them from having supported and ultimately empowered a candidate who ran on a platform of overt and powerful racism. Talk of walls, deportation, and political gifts to white nationalists go very far beyond "dog whistle" politics. This is the real thing, and anybody who supported it needs to at least be honest with themselves that they supported it, whether that was their only or first intent or not.
Furthermore, whatever "liberal bias" the Times might still be accused of must, at some point, rationally explain why the coverage of the purely fictional email "scandal" never ceased, up to election day. I did a Times API search, and found that in the 305 days between Jan 1 2016 and Nov 1 2016, better than half of them had articles about Clinton's emails. On the days they were published, there were just over 2.5 articles on the topic on average. If anything like that amount of pressure had been brought to bear on Trump's business history, or the ethical conduct of his inner circle (which, I might add, does have a very public and non-fictional history that merits scrutiny), we might be having a different discussion today.
This was in no way symmetrical coverage, and if anything was embarrassingly soft on dishonest voices that benefit from the assumption of civility and plausibility without bringing any of their own. The Times at least stopped short of normalizing their racism.
Furthermore, whatever "liberal bias" the Times might still be accused of must, at some point, rationally explain why the coverage of the purely fictional email "scandal" never ceased, up to election day. I did a Times API search, and found that in the 305 days between Jan 1 2016 and Nov 1 2016, better than half of them had articles about Clinton's emails. On the days they were published, there were just over 2.5 articles on the topic on average. If anything like that amount of pressure had been brought to bear on Trump's business history, or the ethical conduct of his inner circle (which, I might add, does have a very public and non-fictional history that merits scrutiny), we might be having a different discussion today.
This was in no way symmetrical coverage, and if anything was embarrassingly soft on dishonest voices that benefit from the assumption of civility and plausibility without bringing any of their own. The Times at least stopped short of normalizing their racism.
5
I have become so disenchanted with the Times narrow one-sided coverage, I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal with the hope that reading both will give me a broader, more accurate perspective.
6
This must be some sort of joke. These white women from NC are upset that they are painted as racists for voting for Trump - who openly used racism to win votes? They feel demonized for voting for a candidate who openly mocked veterans, the disabled, and... The list goes on.
The Times was so desperate to seem evenhanded in its handling of Trump and Clinton, and in so doing gave Trump undeserved credit. Trump's absolutely appalling behavior was treated in the same light as Secretary Clinton's email "scandals." I hardly found any content that really explained in depth what the "scandal" was about - I found that article in Politico. Seriously, it was absurd that it was reported on so much; it was a non-story.
The other thing about covering Trump "honestly" without "bias" is that there is no way to do so. What are his policy positions? He has none that don't change. If you quote him directly, he sounds insane, unless the quote comes from one of the very few times he actually made a speech with a teleprompter.
I hope that the Times won't dumb down its approach to journalism to appeal to those who want their news artificially "fair and balanced." If you do that, you'll lose those new subscribers.
On a related note, I was originally a Bernie Supporter. I would have liked more coverage of him, but it's understandable he wasn't seen as credible at first. I think the Times adjust properly when it seemed he had momentum and was a real candidate. These calls are hard sometimes.
The Times was so desperate to seem evenhanded in its handling of Trump and Clinton, and in so doing gave Trump undeserved credit. Trump's absolutely appalling behavior was treated in the same light as Secretary Clinton's email "scandals." I hardly found any content that really explained in depth what the "scandal" was about - I found that article in Politico. Seriously, it was absurd that it was reported on so much; it was a non-story.
The other thing about covering Trump "honestly" without "bias" is that there is no way to do so. What are his policy positions? He has none that don't change. If you quote him directly, he sounds insane, unless the quote comes from one of the very few times he actually made a speech with a teleprompter.
I hope that the Times won't dumb down its approach to journalism to appeal to those who want their news artificially "fair and balanced." If you do that, you'll lose those new subscribers.
On a related note, I was originally a Bernie Supporter. I would have liked more coverage of him, but it's understandable he wasn't seen as credible at first. I think the Times adjust properly when it seemed he had momentum and was a real candidate. These calls are hard sometimes.
3
Dear Public Editor, When the NYT announced support for HRC and her candidacy for President, many months ago and did not have the editorial strength and integrity to rescind that support. It was clear the NYT did not want to know the truth about a very flawed candidate. HRC is a flawed person and politician and a beyond belief flawed candidate. How many interviews? How many rest days? How many times did she not tell the truth? President Elect Trump is a flawed person, as we all are. I would have been upset if you supported Candidate Trump, but I was furious that you did not rescind your support of HRC. Bill
7
So this piece ends with a Trump supporter saying “I hope you guys will give people like us a chance too. It’s time to lay down our arms.” Seriously, this is the "journalistic integrity" of the public editor? Acting as a column for Trump supporters, whose guy won the election, to continue to voice their perceived status as aggrieved victims? If they've actually been reading the Times these months as they say, they may have seen some of the slanted coverage they decry. Yet also they saw constant discussions of the very, very many ways their candidate was unqualified for the job, and they voted for him anyway. How about they take some "personal responsibility" for that fact, and try to understand how and why many Clinton voters cannot separate Trump voters from the execrable racist, sexist, xenophobic buffoon for whom they voted.
7
For those throwing the term "racist" around here's the definition from Merriam-Webster.
Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall Donald Trump or his supporters ever expressing this view, yet the Times and a lot of it's commenters continue to repeat this. It would help if one got outside the "bubble" and talked to those who did vote for Trump, not the 1% who actually are racist, but the 99% who aren't and find out why they did so.
Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall Donald Trump or his supporters ever expressing this view, yet the Times and a lot of it's commenters continue to repeat this. It would help if one got outside the "bubble" and talked to those who did vote for Trump, not the 1% who actually are racist, but the 99% who aren't and find out why they did so.
6
Perhaps you are a white man and cannot pick up on the cues and do whistles?
1
So maybe all Trumps supporters are not racists and misogynists, but one thing they are all guilty of is their utter inability to look beyond "change" or "make America great again" or whatever meaningless slogans they fell for and see the very real and irreversible damage they have done to this country. They voted for a man who had few real policy ideas and who openly mocked and threatened anyone other than white, Christian men. The alt-right is now empowered, bullies are coming out of their holes and inflicting real violence on non-whites and other minorities while serious issues like climate change are ignored.
For all those complaining that the Times was biased towards Hillary Clinton, I would remind them that this paper was part of the media's vilification of her based on the email issue. That the Times continued to make that the central feature of her campaign is shameful. They did not demand that the real issues, and the disgraceful lack of any coherent policy from Trump, be the focus, but instead were simply lazy, picking up his tweets as if they were real coverage -- it was all about Trump.
Maureen Dowd constantly picked on Hillary and had the nerve to castigate her for Bill's extra-marital affairs instead of acknowledging that she was a victim. To turn it around as she did was disgraceful. If the Times insists on continuing to feature her pieces, I will simply not read them.
For all those complaining that the Times was biased towards Hillary Clinton, I would remind them that this paper was part of the media's vilification of her based on the email issue. That the Times continued to make that the central feature of her campaign is shameful. They did not demand that the real issues, and the disgraceful lack of any coherent policy from Trump, be the focus, but instead were simply lazy, picking up his tweets as if they were real coverage -- it was all about Trump.
Maureen Dowd constantly picked on Hillary and had the nerve to castigate her for Bill's extra-marital affairs instead of acknowledging that she was a victim. To turn it around as she did was disgraceful. If the Times insists on continuing to feature her pieces, I will simply not read them.
7
I stopped reading Dowd years ago. I do remember that I found her funny back in the 90s though. But her writing is always the same, puns, parallels, contrasts, simplistic word plays and snark -- all on a superficial gossipy level. Not worth the time.
This discussion of whether people who voted for Trump are a priori racist for doing so is an important one. Trump took George Wallace's racist rantings and brought them into the 21st century (although, I doubt Trump knows anything about Wallace). Yes, group of 10 college-educated white women in Charlotte, NC -- you are racist if you voted for an unabashed racist. And, I don't want to hear about how it was his "economic message" that resonated with you. You mean his vows to bring coal and steel jobs back to the rust-belt? Those are not policy ideas, they are pie-in-the-sky lies designed to win votes. He should have just thrown money off the back of a truck as he rode through the upper midwest. When you pull the lever for a man who wants to round up the members of the third largest religion in the US and who calls Mexicans rapists, you have a bigotry problem. A big one. Spare us the defensiveness. Go ahead and embrace your new leader. We'll pass.
4
It's an interesting point. However, if one votes for Hillary, then one must support corruption, right?
1
I for one would love to understand why 10 educated white women voted for a candidate who portrayed himself as a sexual predator, a homophobe, a blatant racist and a misogynist, a tax dodger and a businessman who filed for bankruptcy as a matter of routine. Note, that the New York Times did not have to push these perspectives. Trump went out of his way to trumpet them. On the other side was a flawed but highly accomplished women with impeccable experience.
Please do speak to Capwell and friends. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why 53% of white women voted for Trump.
Please do speak to Capwell and friends. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why 53% of white women voted for Trump.
7
The women didn't have a blind spot for Clinton's corruption and policy cul-de-sacs.
1
Lip service. The letter to NYT readers professing soul searching and fair, unbiased journalism ahead was a strong statement about the awareness of the NYT that they had been slanting their coverage, yet they choose not to issue such a statement until the election win-meter had turned nearly 180 degrees from their projected direction.
I was one of the subscribers who considered cancelling due to the coverage, and decided to wait to see how they handled the "day-after" and beyond.
NYT, your letter is proving to be lip service based on the tone of your headlines. My political position is not influencing this feedback; I like the other readers who've reached out to you expect a level of professionalism you've failed of late to bring to the table.
My favorite thing about the NYT brand shouldn't be your cooking app.
I was one of the subscribers who considered cancelling due to the coverage, and decided to wait to see how they handled the "day-after" and beyond.
NYT, your letter is proving to be lip service based on the tone of your headlines. My political position is not influencing this feedback; I like the other readers who've reached out to you expect a level of professionalism you've failed of late to bring to the table.
My favorite thing about the NYT brand shouldn't be your cooking app.
6
What I'll agree on is MORE HONEST campaign coverage was needed. The vast majority of journalists chose sides and the fight was on. Anything short of your candidate's view was termed as wrong. Seriously? That's supposed to be "journalism"?
Where was news; just plain ol' honest news? It didn't exist.
Where was news; just plain ol' honest news? It didn't exist.
5
In the age of social media, it is harder than ever to keep track of what is going on in the country and the world. This makes reporting by traditional news sources doubly important, since these sources provide perspective whereas social media gives all news, big and small, real and fake, an equal platform.
The Times could have given a better sense of perspective this election season. Too many of the anti-Trump articles seemed contrived and unrelated to tangible, newsworthy events. The language used in some anti-Trump editorials was so harsh as to be out of proportion to the events necessitating the editorial. Reading the Times felt on occasion like reading a facebook news feed, since not every anti-Trump piece was grounded in an event or revelation that changed what we knew about the candidate or his campaign. The boundary between objective journalism and opinion was blurred.
Meanwhile, I found there were newsworthy events that received little or no coverage. For example, I somehow missed until after the election the fact that Trump had a November court date for the Trump University scheme. There were enough newsworthy events during the campaign that the overall amount of anti-Trump coverage was appropriate. But, it wasn't entirely relevant.
The Times could have given a better sense of perspective this election season. Too many of the anti-Trump articles seemed contrived and unrelated to tangible, newsworthy events. The language used in some anti-Trump editorials was so harsh as to be out of proportion to the events necessitating the editorial. Reading the Times felt on occasion like reading a facebook news feed, since not every anti-Trump piece was grounded in an event or revelation that changed what we knew about the candidate or his campaign. The boundary between objective journalism and opinion was blurred.
Meanwhile, I found there were newsworthy events that received little or no coverage. For example, I somehow missed until after the election the fact that Trump had a November court date for the Trump University scheme. There were enough newsworthy events during the campaign that the overall amount of anti-Trump coverage was appropriate. But, it wasn't entirely relevant.
1
I am sorry, but a moderate Trump supporter seems to me a person who accepted lies as more attractive than truths, and fear and hatred as more appealing than support and trust. We need to talk to and learn from one another, but the chasm of lies that attracted moderate voters is a huge bridge to cross towards understanding. What did you all hear that rang true?
2
The Times coverage was generally just as bad as Fox News, but in a different way. You spent nearly 0 time comparing policy and evidenced based outcomes. Zero, zip, zilch. Every day I'd start with Times headlines and see 10 articles on the stupid things Trump said an article about Clintons emails. Policy? What Policy differences? Shameful, and still is.
3
A surprisingly open and fair-minded admission form the NYT. Too bad the rest of the paper is doing its best to incite bitter hysterical backlash on the part of the left.
2
"The liberal TINT of the NYT's".......HAH HAH HAH HAH HAHHAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!! Stop, my chest hurts from laughing!!!!!!!!
2
There is no doubt the NY Times was unfairly and deliberately biased in "reporting" about the campaign. Three examples: 1. Every photo of Mr. Trump was terrible and every photo of Ms. Clinton was slick during the time leading up to his nomination. This terrible practice eased gradually as Mr. Trump became more assured of winning. 2. Under-reporting the good news for Mr. Trump was common. In one instance, the headline read "Trump Fails to Fill Stadium" while the unvarnished truth was remarkably the opposite. He filled one venue and switched to another larger place. The new venue was filled and he switched to a still larger stadium which was filled to about 85% capacity. The headline and article were grossly misleading and blatantly unfair. 3. When Donna Brazille (sp?) secretly and dishonestly provided the Clinton folks with debate questions ahead of time, the NY Times gave it one small line on the front page referring to a story on the back pages. Every other honest publication had a headline shouting the unvarnished truth -- Clinton Cheats !! Then, to make matters worse, the NY Times Publisher sends out a letter proclaiming to report things "without favor". GIVE ME A BREAK !!! Your own Publisher seems to be totally unaware of how biased and unfair his own newspaper really is. Perhaps he is part of the conspiracy which would account for his denial. In the good old days, I viewed the NYT as a professional reporter of the news. Not so any more.
6
Trump supporters who do not believe they are racist should take their own hard look st what, through their precious votes, they brought to power. Stop blaming the Times for actually covering what Trump himself and his supporters did and said at rallies. Better yet, fine, educated ladies of the South, why don't you put more effort into influencing your president elect to do more than say "stop it" to some of his thuggish supporters instead of trying to get positive coverage of your upstandingness from the NYT?
8
What happens when the media fills the room with polls showing a not-popular- candidate having an 85% chance of winning. Is so engrossed with the angst of the blue bubble urbanites, that they ignore the the red flats? Then give tons of space to the irascibility of the red head, in an attempt to show how awful he might be for the navel centric bubble heads. An offered him free publicity daily. And in making him look ridiculous, rallied around him states the other candidate cited as deplorable.
Given the media had declared HRC a winner.....her less than avid supporters stayed home. And the groups of the audacious underdog showed up.
I am a blue bubble head who learned a lesson. A long time coastal from the Midwest. I should have known that back there, when the River floods, FEMA is not the first call.
Given the media had declared HRC a winner.....her less than avid supporters stayed home. And the groups of the audacious underdog showed up.
I am a blue bubble head who learned a lesson. A long time coastal from the Midwest. I should have known that back there, when the River floods, FEMA is not the first call.
2
One step to improve honest coverage is to refrain from reporting Trump's tweets as news.
6
I have the impression that the Corporate New York Times would rather have Trump than Sanders. And so we have Trump. The New York Times has lost all credibility for me. I still read it tho'.
4
The Times has no reason to apologize to Trump supporters. If anything, the paper sometimes painted a sympathetic picture of them, with features on the "grievances" of people in Youngstown and elsewhere, and with a column that noted that not all of his supporters are bigots, which seemed to define faint praise. (Roughly two thirds believe he's a Muslim or wasn't born here. How explain that as something other than bigotry?) His supporters in North Carolina and elsewhere need to explain why they backed the most dangerously unfit man ever to run for office.
The Times delivered tough-minded reporting of this candidate. Here's hoping the paper continues it now that he's president. And if there's a meltdown in the future, the Times and other newspapers need to hold Trump's supporters accountable. There will need to be a reckoning.
The Times delivered tough-minded reporting of this candidate. Here's hoping the paper continues it now that he's president. And if there's a meltdown in the future, the Times and other newspapers need to hold Trump's supporters accountable. There will need to be a reckoning.
5
As an avid Times reader and "comment"ator, I, a "Feel the Bern" Democrat, felt that both the Editorial page and the Op-ed columnists were all-in for Hillary Clinton. This editorial myopia totally missed that 2016 was an anti-establishment election. The fixation on Trump's character missed the point that voters were getting his message and not anything of the kind from Sec. Clinton who, in fact, went "low" as well as ignoring the progressive wing of her party by moving to the center with her choice of Tim Kaine thus ensuring a low turnout of the Obama coalition, especially in the crucial "blue wall" Rust Belt states. The Times seemed like Hillary to have missed the message that both the Sanders and Trump candidacies were sending. No one was there to sound the alarm and now we're faced with another frightening minority President (in terms of the popular vote) and the real potential of immense damage to our democratic institutions that may surpass that of George W. Bush.
4
It's the moral vanity of the left that has always turned off the rest of the country.
7
And what sort of vanity does the elite Donald Trump posses? Immoral vanity? Because surely he's vain, an elite.
1
Have you ever heard of Norman Ornstein? He's a Republican. He's a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. What does he think of the Republican Party, of which he is a member? He thinks it's become a "radical insurgency" that won't recognize the legitimacy of the other party, won't compromise, and doesn't believe in governing. That's a conservative Republican speaking. And you want to talk about the left?
It's the immoral destruction of democracy by the Republican Party that turned off the majority of Americans – who last time I looked voted for Hillary Clinton.
It's the immoral destruction of democracy by the Republican Party that turned off the majority of Americans – who last time I looked voted for Hillary Clinton.
1
"They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim."
Whether or nor they "consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim" these women are all that and misogynists too. Trump said what he said, they heard it, they voted for him.
And the Times and other "main stream media" should stop apologizing. Trump said what he said and the Times reported it. And what Trump said homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim, and misogynist too. The Times did not paint it so. If anything the Times and other legitimate news outlets failed to stand up for themselves.
The polls were right too. They measured and reported voter intent. Had they discounted for voter intimidation and voter suppression the polls would have been right about the outcome too.
Whether or nor they "consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim" these women are all that and misogynists too. Trump said what he said, they heard it, they voted for him.
And the Times and other "main stream media" should stop apologizing. Trump said what he said and the Times reported it. And what Trump said homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim, and misogynist too. The Times did not paint it so. If anything the Times and other legitimate news outlets failed to stand up for themselves.
The polls were right too. They measured and reported voter intent. Had they discounted for voter intimidation and voter suppression the polls would have been right about the outcome too.
9
Liz, I am really surprised you began and end your column talking about 5 Trump supporters who claim to not be racist. They supported a racist for president, his spoken and tweeted racism wasn't a deal breaker for them. So if you support a racist you aren't racist yourself? I think a major problem with the election reporting was the NYT contribution to the constant villifying of Hillary Clinton and not taking Donald seriously. You and much of mainstream media didn't call out his misinformation, his lies, and are still call white supremacists alt-right. You have helped to normalize the extreme views of an old school racist, misogynist, classist snob.
7
A "he says this, she says that" report from Liz Spayd. The Times escapes any criticism from Liz, who sees the "Public Editor"'s job as just summarizing a few opinions of readers that she found interesting, along with Baquet's and Sulzberger's vow to "rededicate ourselves to ... Times journalism."
A more substantive critique of the Times would point out that "he said this, she said that" reporting is a characteristic of Times' lamentable use of print, and would point out the many topics that deserved more attention, and that the few that did largely arrived uselessly after the election
The constitutional rights of "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" have penetrating in-depth reportage in mind, not "Entertainment Tonight".
A more substantive critique of the Times would point out that "he said this, she said that" reporting is a characteristic of Times' lamentable use of print, and would point out the many topics that deserved more attention, and that the few that did largely arrived uselessly after the election
The constitutional rights of "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" have penetrating in-depth reportage in mind, not "Entertainment Tonight".
4
The sentiments expressed in this column and in the Sulzberger letter to readers hit the right tone but the NYT's worsening issue of slanted coverage won't abate until the paper goes straight to the problem's source. I'm not talking about the editorial board--I'm talking about human resources. It's pretty clear that all or nearly all the writers recruited for the paper have a certain viewpoint. Although they think they are being as objective as possible, they deliver a decidedly opinionated product. Are there any conservative journalists in the newsroom? Even one? Or has the Times successfully purged every journalist from its ranks who doesn't share the leftist orthodoxy so consistently and blatantly regurgitated in ordinary "news" articles miles and miles away from the opinion pages?
3
Human Resources indeed yes. It takes intelligence, time, hard investigation, digging, to get in-depth insightful reporting. Instead we get "he said this, she said that" and "what might possibly happen tomorrow" masquerading as news, plus superficial pontificating as analysis. The "Public Editor" is not helping to identify the problem.
1
They voted for a racist. They are racist. You can't vote for a racist and claim innocence. Germans voted for a racist and claimed later they weren't racists. They lied.
3
You're kidding, right? The NYT went to the total in-the-bag mode over Hillary from Day One. Bernie never had a chance and literally no day went without at least one scurrilous attack against Donald Trump. What little faith I had remaining for the journalistic profession was obliterated by the furious, Pravda-like bias shown by the entire NYT during the campaign.
Donald Trump is not a racist, nor are the millions of passionate voters who support our President-elect. If the New York Times cannot recognize that bias and calumny have no place in American journalism, then the Grey Lady needs to admit that it is a Democrat Party propaganda mill and quit calling itself a news agency.
Donald Trump is not a racist, nor are the millions of passionate voters who support our President-elect. If the New York Times cannot recognize that bias and calumny have no place in American journalism, then the Grey Lady needs to admit that it is a Democrat Party propaganda mill and quit calling itself a news agency.
4
As with the Dems, it seems that the NYT still has its head in the sand. They think they are great so not much will happen.
2
One of the great problems with the NYT is no one any longer believes they are capable of standing on principle against their own side.
For example, when Obama issued an executive order granting amnesty to 3 million dreamers, even if the NYT (and myself) might agree with the policy end, many thoughtful and deliberative people rejected this as an unconstitutional overreach. Yet the NYT was nowhere to be found on the illegitimacy of the process.
Similarly, Obama's transgender bathroom injunction: The policy itself might be laudable, but the means were frightening in the overreach and implications for future presidents (think Trump).
Time and again, the NYT has adopted any exigency to support the most liberal party line, never deforming its lockstep even .01% to indicate independent thought or intelligence.
(It did, commendably, publish a piece questioning the dire exaggerations of lethal encounters between minorities and police, but that was a single article in a deluge of operatic, anecdotal articles by Charles Blow and columns by Paul Krugman calling everyone and their mother on the Right a racist.)
It would be truly wondrous to ever open the NYT and encounter a true intellectual surprise: A spine-ful stand against their hyper-liberal PC persona, on principle.
You might start by publishing the Danish cartoons in defense of free speech.
For example, when Obama issued an executive order granting amnesty to 3 million dreamers, even if the NYT (and myself) might agree with the policy end, many thoughtful and deliberative people rejected this as an unconstitutional overreach. Yet the NYT was nowhere to be found on the illegitimacy of the process.
Similarly, Obama's transgender bathroom injunction: The policy itself might be laudable, but the means were frightening in the overreach and implications for future presidents (think Trump).
Time and again, the NYT has adopted any exigency to support the most liberal party line, never deforming its lockstep even .01% to indicate independent thought or intelligence.
(It did, commendably, publish a piece questioning the dire exaggerations of lethal encounters between minorities and police, but that was a single article in a deluge of operatic, anecdotal articles by Charles Blow and columns by Paul Krugman calling everyone and their mother on the Right a racist.)
It would be truly wondrous to ever open the NYT and encounter a true intellectual surprise: A spine-ful stand against their hyper-liberal PC persona, on principle.
You might start by publishing the Danish cartoons in defense of free speech.
7
I'm not for demonizing such ladies voting for Trump, and calling them names won't encourage conversation. BUT, I am not for enabling people's self delusions. Trump ran on a campaign that was racist, mysogynist, anti-immigrant, and anti-intellectual, not to mention deceptive, juvenile, and self-serving. That he attracted so many on the racist, anti-semitic fringe groups, while Clinton attracted no such demographic, cannot be ignored. By voting for him, these women, at best, ignored these things, thereby sanctioning them; at worst, they harbor these views and need to take responsibility. Ain't no accident that hate crimes are on the rise and white supremacists and nationalists feel newly emboldened.
7
I am one of the ones who were offended by the NYT letter and I rarely get offended by anything. How dare they talk about fair reporting! The headline that most enraged me was after the third debate with the headline that gave Trump what he wanted rather than saying that Hillary soundly defeated him again. They got sucked in by Trump. Can't the editors see what he was doing. Where was "critical thinking" that day?
2
It's fine to talk about balancing coverage, but I would argue that the Times did not start covering Trump objectively until far too late, when it finally started calling Trump's statements lies. There was so much false equivalence that it boggles the mind.
As for the ladies in NC, who are undoubtedly what I call congenital republicans, if your candidate uses racism, misogyny, and xenophobia and you still vote for him, are you not also voting for those things.
We hear from republicans who complain about the national debt that they don't want to leave a large debt to their grandchildren. But by voting for Trump, they have condemned their grandchildren to an unstable future due to his denial of climate change.
Reality truly does have a liberal bias.
As for the ladies in NC, who are undoubtedly what I call congenital republicans, if your candidate uses racism, misogyny, and xenophobia and you still vote for him, are you not also voting for those things.
We hear from republicans who complain about the national debt that they don't want to leave a large debt to their grandchildren. But by voting for Trump, they have condemned their grandchildren to an unstable future due to his denial of climate change.
Reality truly does have a liberal bias.
6
An examination of the Times' articles on Scott Walker dating from initial election through his subsequent Wisconsin battles manifests the problem. In article after article describing his battles with union and Democratic party faithful, the articles provided absolutely no basis whatever why anyone in his or her right mind would ever vote for Walker. Common perception exists that no wall exists between Times' editorial and news pages. It simply could never appear to reporters that people of good faith might support limited govt., might believe exec. orders overreached, might believe promises re Obamacare inaccurate and might believe they had been left off the radar, except as stereotypes of ignoramus voters. I'm a Democrat who voted for HRC, but are there any Times reporters who ever have even considered voting Republican?
6
You write as though you're surprised. How can that be? When have you ever been even-handed? If the NYTs didn't exert such influence on what is considered news, you'd just be another laughable leftist rag. The liberal establishment loves you, but everyone else sees you for what you are: The propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Same as it ever was.
5
hoping NOTHING changes at NYT,WP,CNN,MSNBC,NBC,CBS,ABC,NPR etc.
can thing of almost nothing better than running against the Democratic Party [ ie the fifth estate]. you all make it almost too easy...
can thing of almost nothing better than running against the Democratic Party [ ie the fifth estate]. you all make it almost too easy...
exactly!
Wow Ms. Spayd? Is your article satire? It's hard to tell nowadays. Regardless, I do not care about these people's opinions in NC. They just showed the world that they possess a severe lack of good judgment in electing the most unqualified person ever to the presidency, racism aside. I hope they will be proud of the destruction that is on the way that they helped create. With regards to the electoral college graph that was posted in the Times everyday which showed Clinton winning by humongous margins, you should now conduct a poll that asks NY Times readers who would have voted for Clinton, but seeing that she was SO far ahead in your graph, decided to stay home. I am also disappointed in your lack of coverage for Bernie Sanders. Most indications said that Bernie would have beaten Trump. You leave a lot to be desired as you reach out to Trump people to help support your waning existence.
3
How we respond to bigotry reveals who we really are, not just who we say we are. Donald Trump has a long history of racism, sexism, and religious intolerance, and he used all of those traits in his campaign. Even Paul Ryan had to acknowledge Trump's "textbook racism," and, for Ryan, it was a means to his own ends and he supported it. Those 10 women are no different and they should be honest about it: they are willing to support a bigot for their own ends. They don't get to make themselves feel better by pretending otherwise.
5
I read the Times avidly throughout the campaign. I do not recall a single instance in which the Times characterized all Trump supporters, or most Trump supporters, or even a sizable plurality of Trump supporters as racists. Certainly there were articles that covered some of Trump's supporters who were manifest racists. That simply reflected a fact and one that certainly merited some coverage.
Certainly the Times editorial page was explicitly anti-Trump. So indeed were many other newspapers, some that had been hard core, long term Republican. Yes, the Times' columnists were mostly anti-Trump even some who would clearly identify themselves as conservative. That was true of many other prominent conservatives.
The fundamental factor behind all this was that Donald Trump was the worst candidate for the presidency in living memory. He conducted a campaign that overflowed with untruths, demagoguery, nastiness, and indecencies of all kinds. To cover him in a "even-handed" way would be analogous to covering the issue of climate change in a he said/she said "balanced" fashion. No, the reason that the Times' coverage of the presidential campaign leaned anti-Trump was because candidate Trump ran an atypically egregious campaign. The leadership of the Times has nothing they should apologize for (with the exception of giving such prominent coverage to the absurdly over-inflated predictions of the Upshot's pollster Nate Cohn).
Certainly the Times editorial page was explicitly anti-Trump. So indeed were many other newspapers, some that had been hard core, long term Republican. Yes, the Times' columnists were mostly anti-Trump even some who would clearly identify themselves as conservative. That was true of many other prominent conservatives.
The fundamental factor behind all this was that Donald Trump was the worst candidate for the presidency in living memory. He conducted a campaign that overflowed with untruths, demagoguery, nastiness, and indecencies of all kinds. To cover him in a "even-handed" way would be analogous to covering the issue of climate change in a he said/she said "balanced" fashion. No, the reason that the Times' coverage of the presidential campaign leaned anti-Trump was because candidate Trump ran an atypically egregious campaign. The leadership of the Times has nothing they should apologize for (with the exception of giving such prominent coverage to the absurdly over-inflated predictions of the Upshot's pollster Nate Cohn).
5
I cancelled my subscription and it appears that you still don't get it. What would be welcome is an instigation into how the media including the NY Times managed to turn of story of absolutely no real consequence to any voter, Clinton's email server, into a major scandal. No laws were broken, there was no coverup, no vital national security interest was compromised. There was literally nothing there. Instead of doing that self examination, the Times has apparently concluded that profits are better by being part of the alt right echo chamber.
3
I am also a Times reader for 50+ years and was in the first wave of digital subscribers, but I have been recoiling from the biased coverage, not only for this election, but for years past. Usually, the Times settles down to covering a broader range of topics with some perspective once the election is over. I fear that this time, you have Trump stuck in your gullet and we are going to be served up an endless dissection of every twitch and spasm. I also decided to give up my subscription and have held back as I so enjoy all the non partisan sections of the paper, but that may not last as I just cannot take these negative headlines on a daily basis.
Please, let's give Trump a chance and hope that Obama is a gentleman and does not behave badly. I seem to remember him saying "Elections have consequences and I won". Shoe is on the other foot now, so don't be a hypocrite. Let it be. The Time could lead the way to healing the Country, if it had a mind to by being fair and unbiased and just reporting the news.
Please, let's give Trump a chance and hope that Obama is a gentleman and does not behave badly. I seem to remember him saying "Elections have consequences and I won". Shoe is on the other foot now, so don't be a hypocrite. Let it be. The Time could lead the way to healing the Country, if it had a mind to by being fair and unbiased and just reporting the news.
2
We cannot give Trump a chance. He's abominable and we must be on guard. President Obama has always behaved like a gentleman, unlike Trump.
It wasn't just the reporting. Readers were subject to a barrage of opinions from an army of op-ed columnists. All the usual suspects: Blow, Kristof, Krugman, Bruni, Friedman, Egan, and of course the hallowed EB. The same MP3 chanted 5 times daily from sunset to sundown. All got a free pass, both here and in the letter. Ditto for back-slapping verified commenters. At least they were well-marked, easily avoided. The others, not so much.
Nevertheless it's clear many of them are now well past their expiration date. It is hoped that some, if not all, start dropping like flies, or at least changing their tune. Now that the NYT has unleashed its anger against Facebook, hopefully they'll also wash their hands off Facebook and with it, their overdue goodbye to the sorry tradition of verifieds.
My hunch is the publisher's letter was Sulzberger's balloon to start cleaning house, first with putting Baquet's head on the chopping block. The balloon was a success, over 1500 commenters cheered heartily. So it's no longer if Baquet will go but when. Upshot similarly is overdue for upheaval, even better, a royal flush.
Whether actions follow words or not, promises to be interesting. Count this commenter's subscription in for the long haul! All the best.
Nevertheless it's clear many of them are now well past their expiration date. It is hoped that some, if not all, start dropping like flies, or at least changing their tune. Now that the NYT has unleashed its anger against Facebook, hopefully they'll also wash their hands off Facebook and with it, their overdue goodbye to the sorry tradition of verifieds.
My hunch is the publisher's letter was Sulzberger's balloon to start cleaning house, first with putting Baquet's head on the chopping block. The balloon was a success, over 1500 commenters cheered heartily. So it's no longer if Baquet will go but when. Upshot similarly is overdue for upheaval, even better, a royal flush.
Whether actions follow words or not, promises to be interesting. Count this commenter's subscription in for the long haul! All the best.
5
Within your column is the heart of The Times problem: you highlight a quote that compares the behavior of some members of Black Lives Matter, a group devoted to addressing racism, with Donald Trump, an individual who is wholly responsible for his own racist actions. That you can't see or point out the difference is the very problem with The Times' coverage.
2
I'm a fairly new Times subscriber and honestly did so during the election as I was hungry for thorough journalism. I'm a liberal and at the time welcomed the information I got here - it met my needs. However in retrospect and as I evaluate my relationships with family and friends Trump voters I have questioned how much fair input I had gotten about them (and Trump). I agree with the sentiment that all Trump voters shouldn't be measured by the worst of them. That's only logical. I'm glad to hear the NYTs is understanding this and looking at more coverage across many lines. Because in truth this is why we all simply missed his victory. We were just seeking our own and totally overlooked half of the country. Thank you.
1
I still read the NYT mostly to know exactly the thoughts of ultra liberal democrats and what are their criticisms of those who disagree with them. So it is worth reading knowing the stories themselves, what is covered and not covered, represent extreme bias and complete lack of objectivity.
1
When I want to read "ultra liberal Democrats" ideas, the Times is not where I look. That's funny. You're missing a lot.
The Times waited until 2 months before the election in a 2-year campaign to start using the term "liar" when citing Donald Trumps many bald-faced lies. And when it finally did, it spent a week congratulating itself. This was a shameful dereliction of duty for which I feel nothing but disgust.
The Times' weak-kneed "fact checking" column could not get past cutsie "not quite" and "out of context" judgments when Trump just lied. But it found many, many, many opportunities to use the word "scandal" in articles about Clinton's sloppy email hygiene, to recycle Benghazi like a conservative rag and to swallow the fabricated story about Clinton profiting from the sale of uranium mining rights hook, line and sinker when given the chance for a partial scoop.
If there is one beneficial outcome of this election, it is that I have found many opportunities to sample the reporting of other newspapers. You can be sure I will not rely on the Times for the truth in the future.
The Times' weak-kneed "fact checking" column could not get past cutsie "not quite" and "out of context" judgments when Trump just lied. But it found many, many, many opportunities to use the word "scandal" in articles about Clinton's sloppy email hygiene, to recycle Benghazi like a conservative rag and to swallow the fabricated story about Clinton profiting from the sale of uranium mining rights hook, line and sinker when given the chance for a partial scoop.
If there is one beneficial outcome of this election, it is that I have found many opportunities to sample the reporting of other newspapers. You can be sure I will not rely on the Times for the truth in the future.
3
The Times' endorsed Clinton, let's remember that. Coverage before and after the endorsement was slanted in her favor.
The dismissive and minimal treatment of alternatives, such as Dr. Jill Stein, was a result of that slant.
For those who still regard the Times as some sort of national icon of balaced journalism, the coverage should serve as a stark illustration of how the Times' publisher's own politics influences the paper. The Times is not balanced, it is pro the Clinton-style Democratic party and dismisses what it calls 'third' parties and others.
The dismissive and minimal treatment of alternatives, such as Dr. Jill Stein, was a result of that slant.
For those who still regard the Times as some sort of national icon of balaced journalism, the coverage should serve as a stark illustration of how the Times' publisher's own politics influences the paper. The Times is not balanced, it is pro the Clinton-style Democratic party and dismisses what it calls 'third' parties and others.
3
Scott, let me say thank you. These comments about how the Times was in the bag for Clinton are just terrific because I haven't had this good a laugh in weeks. The Times was almost as harmful to Clinton's candidacy as the massive campaign of voter suppression by Crossmatch. As for Ms. Stein, that's your idea of an alternative? What kind of alternative is a candidate who believes vaccinations are part of a conspiracy? That's right up there with all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are rapists. As long as you live abroad, maybe you want to start reading the Manchester Guardian and getting some truthful news for a change.
I believe that if the NY Times covers issues and not the horse race aspect of elections that all readers and political stripes will be served well. With the focus on 538 and other data-driven polls failing to accurately reflect this election, I'm hoping the Times will return to what it does best: reporting on issues.
One resource the Times can use more is its own readers. I often find great comments, some I disagree with, but often well thought-out, in the comments and letters section. Use your own readers more to be voices from all sides.
One resource the Times can use more is its own readers. I often find great comments, some I disagree with, but often well thought-out, in the comments and letters section. Use your own readers more to be voices from all sides.
4
In the 1960s, the "fascist" meme was largely confined to the extremist left and student radicals and the like. Today this kind of demonizing approach has leeched into major media, including the Times. Notice, though, that it has exactly the opposite effect than (ostensibly) intended: It alienates people and includes them to vote "fascist" (that is, the imaginary "fascists" of febrile progressivist fantasy).
But maybe that was what was secretly intended by our leftwing neurotics, their own failure and defeat. Victimology has so completely conquered progressivists that it is virtually a kind of self-deification to imagine yourself a victim. The supreme image of the "self" is the self persecuted. It's funny how many people in our country think they are being persecuted by Nazis! Such self-tragifying drama queens. But I suppose that's "normal" for the therapeutic culture.
But maybe that was what was secretly intended by our leftwing neurotics, their own failure and defeat. Victimology has so completely conquered progressivists that it is virtually a kind of self-deification to imagine yourself a victim. The supreme image of the "self" is the self persecuted. It's funny how many people in our country think they are being persecuted by Nazis! Such self-tragifying drama queens. But I suppose that's "normal" for the therapeutic culture.
1
I understand that complete objectivity is hard to come by. Nevertheless, in the last month I have noticed more value judgments, unsubstantiated by evidence, in front-page news items in the Times than I have before. Either your reporters are overflowing with opinions or your editors are adding opinion to their news stories. When you write and edit news stories, you need to try harder to use -- and show -- evidence to support your statements. It's okay to have an overall point of view (conservative or liberal, say), and writers and editors are welcome to have strong opinions, but you need to show us that you have a clear understanding of the difference between opinion about events and the description of those events.
3
"The NY Times editorial today.
"None of that will happen if he continues to let liars and con artists hijack his platform".
Writing to the digital virus called fake news concluded with the sentence in quotes, referring to Zuckerberg.
Change the medium from Facebook to The NY Times and Zuckerberg to Clinton and you have your problem.
Your Public Editor piece seems to hope for a more balanced newspaper and more diligent reporting. We can only hope.
The Times paper is struggling with the new methods of news distribution for one reason, it HAS LOST the mission..."without fear or favor". Rigorous investigative journalism delivered without bias is your only hope.
Not even the left leaning benefit from the echo chamber.
For the editors to say "praise their journalism as fair to both candidates is either naive or wholesale delusion.
"Freedom of the press" comes with responsibility and the Times is irresponsible with its execution of the mission.
Imagine if a medium evolved to become THE beacon of truth.
You'd run out of ink.
Wake up, please.
"None of that will happen if he continues to let liars and con artists hijack his platform".
Writing to the digital virus called fake news concluded with the sentence in quotes, referring to Zuckerberg.
Change the medium from Facebook to The NY Times and Zuckerberg to Clinton and you have your problem.
Your Public Editor piece seems to hope for a more balanced newspaper and more diligent reporting. We can only hope.
The Times paper is struggling with the new methods of news distribution for one reason, it HAS LOST the mission..."without fear or favor". Rigorous investigative journalism delivered without bias is your only hope.
Not even the left leaning benefit from the echo chamber.
For the editors to say "praise their journalism as fair to both candidates is either naive or wholesale delusion.
"Freedom of the press" comes with responsibility and the Times is irresponsible with its execution of the mission.
Imagine if a medium evolved to become THE beacon of truth.
You'd run out of ink.
Wake up, please.
2
Can you not differentiate between what's in the opinion pages and news reporting? They are different sections of the paper and the Times does generally treat them as such!
So basically we admit nothing about about the repeated false balance of our political reporting and if you complain you don't count.
1
I guess nowadays it's okay to say "I voted for a racist misogynist moron, but that doesn't make me one."
I cant help but feel things would have been different if the Times and the rest of the media covered actual issues instead of just the horse race.
I cant help but feel things would have been different if the Times and the rest of the media covered actual issues instead of just the horse race.
3
We've just endured 18 months of their breathless and pointless horse race -- no issues were discussed seriously during this time. The public is more ignorant than ever, knowing zero about the major catastrophe we face, one much bigger than any war -- the massive civilization-destroying AGW catastrophe. Articles on climate change should have been on the front page every day during the election. And now we have Trump, a man who says that climate change is a hoax, and no one notices. It's appalling. This one position of Trump's alone has completely discredited us in the eyes of the world -- and the NYT (not the WaPo) bears a major responsibility.
Lots of people should resign. But that will not happen because the NYT serves the needs of the rich of NY. The Times will clearly continue business as usual until their offices are flooded. Life in the bubble is good for now.
Lots of people should resign. But that will not happen because the NYT serves the needs of the rich of NY. The Times will clearly continue business as usual until their offices are flooded. Life in the bubble is good for now.
The nyt has been beating the drum about fake news from new media
Ummm the nyt is fake news!
They created a narrative that hrc was going to win and refused to write articles about how disliked she was. Anyone who disliked hrc was sexist according to the nyt bubble. Anyone who was concerned about her cozy relationships to money was accused of being right wing. Anyone who preferred Bernie was lectured to.
They were making the news. They were trying to force their expert opinion on their readers. It was obnoxious.
I am still waiting for an article that takes a critical look at hrc and why she lost. Let's get on with it
Ummm the nyt is fake news!
They created a narrative that hrc was going to win and refused to write articles about how disliked she was. Anyone who disliked hrc was sexist according to the nyt bubble. Anyone who was concerned about her cozy relationships to money was accused of being right wing. Anyone who preferred Bernie was lectured to.
They were making the news. They were trying to force their expert opinion on their readers. It was obnoxious.
I am still waiting for an article that takes a critical look at hrc and why she lost. Let's get on with it
6
"He doesn't want his primary news source to stereotype half the country as racist." It probably less than 25% that actually voted for Trump, and stereotyping typing about half that as racist sounds pretty reasonable.
1
Yes, it is true that most Trump supporters are not racist. I personally know people who voted for the President-elect who are inclusive in their day-to-day lives. They are not racist. But they have empowered a man who expresses racist views and surrounds himself with people who advocate white supremacy. They are personally not racist, but it is okay with them if the President is.
4
To assist the Public Editor and Ombudsman, I would suggest a simple self-test on whether their reporting and staff are truly objective:
When reporting on Donald Trump's plans to implement Federal immigration laws, construction of a border wall partly authorized by an earlier congress, and elimination of sanctuary cities that are in violation of federal law... are you reporting that as strict adherence to the law of the land or are you reporting it as racist xenophobia?
Somehow I suspect the vast majority of the Times staff would default to the latter. And that, Madame, is why the Times is a fundamentally flawed "news" outlet.
When reporting on Donald Trump's plans to implement Federal immigration laws, construction of a border wall partly authorized by an earlier congress, and elimination of sanctuary cities that are in violation of federal law... are you reporting that as strict adherence to the law of the land or are you reporting it as racist xenophobia?
Somehow I suspect the vast majority of the Times staff would default to the latter. And that, Madame, is why the Times is a fundamentally flawed "news" outlet.
6
You lose that one, sir. All of those facts that you mention I've read in the New York Times several times. None of them were reported as having anything to do with xenophobia. They were reported as plain facts. What the Times did say is, the president-elect's initial remarks on deportation were not only unrealistic but probably wouldn't withstand constitutional scrutiny. The president-elect himself seems to have recognized that with his recent change of plans. His most recent statements on the subject can be translated as, "I'm going to continue doing what Obama did." That Times has plenty of flaws but not the ones you cite.
Another non-article from Liz Spayd. An anecdotal summary of readers' views avoiding anything too critical of the Times. They feel "the Times was a swirl of like-mindedness", but a letter was sent to subscribers that included a vow to "rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism".
Wow, really hard hitting and penetrating, eh what?
The "Public Editor" is now a specialist in producing the same drivel as the Times itself, which has discovered that "Entertainment Tonight" is easier to produce than news and sells more papers.
The right of "freedom of the press" is not for support of "he said this, she said that" news coverage.
Wow, really hard hitting and penetrating, eh what?
The "Public Editor" is now a specialist in producing the same drivel as the Times itself, which has discovered that "Entertainment Tonight" is easier to produce than news and sells more papers.
The right of "freedom of the press" is not for support of "he said this, she said that" news coverage.
5
I think the biased coverage probably helped Trump more than it hurt him. Many Americans, particularly those who live outside the big cities, believe very little that the media says, anyway. The blue-collar workers, the ones who have relentlessly been portrayed as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic monsters, saw Trump being portrayed the same way and thought 'Yes! He's one of us!.'
The media overplayed it's hand this time.
The media overplayed it's hand this time.
5
The real enemy of the USA is the mainstream media and its committed Democrat Party employees frequently referred to as 'reporters.'
2
I am still bothered by the daily prominently placed graphic showing Hillary had an 80 percent probability of becoming president that ran unchanged until the election results came in. You then doubled down by blaming that fiasco on state polls and implying readers were fools for believing you. I have yet to read an apology from The Times. The self-serving letter from Sulzberger and Baquet was a textbook example of how not to respond to a disaster. Also Wikileaks revealed that NYT articles about Hillary were sent to her campaign for approval and editing before they were published. How is this responsible journalism? Instead of attacking Facebook and alternative media sites for "fake news" and questionable journalism, get your own house in order.
8
The problem is Baquet and Sulzberger genuinely have no idea what "middle America" thinks nor do they really care. Talk is cheap. There will be no change in Times reporting. Rededicating themselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism means nothing more than continuing the same editorial policies and preaching that is rejected by the large number of voters in the rest belt and working class middle America.
3
"...the liberal tint..."ms spayd? try hue, sez this old lefty.
that said, there is an area emerging like a volcanic island, long under the surface, now in plain sight, rising fearsomely, spotted by your reader who voted for trump but does not consider herself or her friends "homophobic, racist or anti-muslim."
racism, in its strictest sense, (though mostly conflated with bias and bigotry these days), is rooted in the belief that one race is actually inferior to another and so too is the -ism that makes "most people think they are,"
that those who disagree with social and political sentiments not their own, (be they men and women of the times, the cast of "hamilton," the halls of ivy or the subsets of "agendistas" feeling thwarted by opposition to their will or opinion), are indeed inferior to their enlightened selves.
the virulence of the rhetoric, its volume and hysterical tone, it's very persistence, are more a danger to the republic than trump will ever be.
whether or not one sees the baskets (deplorables and irredeemables) as branding of license it's "what's happending here."
related to, but past, class as an index it is driven by the very differences that should be promoting, not precluding, debate in a society founded on concerns for "the general Welfare" and best defined by the vote and free speech in pursuit thereof.
perhaps the times, in its publicly promised self-exam can take a leadership role in fighting this monster, now unmasked and ravenous.
that said, there is an area emerging like a volcanic island, long under the surface, now in plain sight, rising fearsomely, spotted by your reader who voted for trump but does not consider herself or her friends "homophobic, racist or anti-muslim."
racism, in its strictest sense, (though mostly conflated with bias and bigotry these days), is rooted in the belief that one race is actually inferior to another and so too is the -ism that makes "most people think they are,"
that those who disagree with social and political sentiments not their own, (be they men and women of the times, the cast of "hamilton," the halls of ivy or the subsets of "agendistas" feeling thwarted by opposition to their will or opinion), are indeed inferior to their enlightened selves.
the virulence of the rhetoric, its volume and hysterical tone, it's very persistence, are more a danger to the republic than trump will ever be.
whether or not one sees the baskets (deplorables and irredeemables) as branding of license it's "what's happending here."
related to, but past, class as an index it is driven by the very differences that should be promoting, not precluding, debate in a society founded on concerns for "the general Welfare" and best defined by the vote and free speech in pursuit thereof.
perhaps the times, in its publicly promised self-exam can take a leadership role in fighting this monster, now unmasked and ravenous.
There is no mention here of any readers objecting to the constant coverage of Trump and his campaigns driving of the storylines and coverage throughout the election. Every day for a year I would check the "trending" headlines in the NYT and half of them always concerned Trump. And a recent case in point: though Comey's "finding" of "some more emails" commanded excessive coverage in the Times, Trump's recent settling of a fraud case against him for $25 million has elected a fraction of the coverage. The Times and other media outlets gave Trump unending free coverage and enable Comey to throw the election. Did no other readers complain about this?
Sorry, but those ten women in NC are somehow ignoring Trump's calling for his supporters to assassinate Clinton, making racist statements, his open misogyny and now, his appointing of only old, white men to the most important posts in his administration. But I'm supposed to believe them at their word that, somehow, this is O.K. John Kerry was swift boated, but somehow all is forgiven with Trump. Nope. I can't ignore everything this man has said and done for 70 years. He is unqualified, unstable, and thoroughly a disaster for this country.
Sorry, but those ten women in NC are somehow ignoring Trump's calling for his supporters to assassinate Clinton, making racist statements, his open misogyny and now, his appointing of only old, white men to the most important posts in his administration. But I'm supposed to believe them at their word that, somehow, this is O.K. John Kerry was swift boated, but somehow all is forgiven with Trump. Nope. I can't ignore everything this man has said and done for 70 years. He is unqualified, unstable, and thoroughly a disaster for this country.
6
Indy here for Clinton - COULD NOT AGREE MORE! I encountered a lot of Trump supporters here locally, people I cared for and respected. I engaged in respectful conversations with them, trying to understand the allure of Trump. These folks were moderate, educated, successful - not crazies. After listening to them, and hearing echoes of Brexit, I quietly began fretting that the news media, particularly the Times, was overstating the level of support for Clinton and underestimating how much support Trump really had. Even living in a very progressive climate here in CA, I realized the Times was lurching egregiously into one-sidedness. In the final days before the election, it felt like the Times was trying to drive the result it wanted, not cover what was really happening. I stopped reading you at that point because Times coverage had become monotonous gong-banging.
Failing to catch that big of a shift in the national consciousness should tell you all you need to know about whether your coverage was fair. Everyone was mocking the LA Times / USC poll, but it turned out to be right. It was a huge flag. The vaunted five thirty-eight became today's Maginot line.
Up to about 10 years ago, if I read it in the Times, I felt like it was just shy of ironclad Truth.
Kudos for engaging in some self-scrutiny. This applies not just to the Times, but to all national media. I hope you reclaim your status as a top national news outlet that we can trust. We need one desperately now.
Failing to catch that big of a shift in the national consciousness should tell you all you need to know about whether your coverage was fair. Everyone was mocking the LA Times / USC poll, but it turned out to be right. It was a huge flag. The vaunted five thirty-eight became today's Maginot line.
Up to about 10 years ago, if I read it in the Times, I felt like it was just shy of ironclad Truth.
Kudos for engaging in some self-scrutiny. This applies not just to the Times, but to all national media. I hope you reclaim your status as a top national news outlet that we can trust. We need one desperately now.
10
Who are these so called liberals who want more balanced coverage? Few and far between I bet. The times spent way too much coverage on the "horse race" and very little on substance. You published articles purporting to advise trump on how to do ads against Hillary. You spent a lot of coverage on emails and, just before the election, the "baggage Hillary's aides would bring into the white house. There are a lot more examples, but a liberal slant at the times exists only in the mind of the right wing nuts. The times spent way too much coverage trying to be, I guess, "fair".
3
Over 90 % of the complaining respondents of this column are more liberal than the current NYT bias--good luck with any improvements and broader coverage! Besides, they all look back, instead of offering a few steps necessary to turn this some-time good newspaper into a source of objective news, not a tuba for the Dems.
Since no improvement is possible under the same failed management team, it's high time for Mr. Baquet to offer his resignation and become a valuable contributor-at-large on NPR. Unfortunately, the Publisher still sits in his glass tower with a good view of Central Park and understands nothing of the land beyond the Montclair-Summit line... Maybe he wakes up only when the disastrous financials--and the family trust--force him to act. In the meantime, he should watch, and reflect on, the NSL Bubble skit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/20/saturday-night...
Since no improvement is possible under the same failed management team, it's high time for Mr. Baquet to offer his resignation and become a valuable contributor-at-large on NPR. Unfortunately, the Publisher still sits in his glass tower with a good view of Central Park and understands nothing of the land beyond the Montclair-Summit line... Maybe he wakes up only when the disastrous financials--and the family trust--force him to act. In the meantime, he should watch, and reflect on, the NSL Bubble skit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/20/saturday-night...
5
Wanting fair coverage, analysis and not bias is liberal? That reminds me of people claiming that facts, science, climate change are liberal.
The Times is just too full of itself. They think they're smart and special and so they over-step (rejecting Sanders and trying to tilt the nomination to Clinton -- why?). There is very little humility at the Times and there is clearly some other agenda that only the editors know -- I think it's about being rich and fancy. Trump likes that too.
The Times is just too full of itself. They think they're smart and special and so they over-step (rejecting Sanders and trying to tilt the nomination to Clinton -- why?). There is very little humility at the Times and there is clearly some other agenda that only the editors know -- I think it's about being rich and fancy. Trump likes that too.
I am having a lot of trouble with the logic of Cindy Capwell and her friends who do not consider themselves racist, or anti-Muslim. They did, however, make a choice to vote for someone who is. Their votes helped to make him one of the most powerful men on the planet.
3
I just can't see that the Times had a bias toward Clinton. They talked about the e-mails all the time and most negative coverage of Trump was just quoting his words. Who are these people, bad winners?
4
I cancelled my subscription because of the persistent failure of the NYT to put the Clinton email story into its partisan political context. It's a story that has no substance at all, but the Times promoted it in order to create an impression of critical symmetry in their coverage of the candidates. The Times was not the only offender in this and perhaps not the worst, but it is the paper to which my subscription dollars were going. They have been redirected to another publication nowo One that tried, at least, to uncover the facts, put them in perspective, and reveal the machinations at work in this election.
4
I, also in the PNW, will be doing the same.
Let me get this straight, a bunch of white ladies from South Carolina who "don't think they are homophobic or racist" just cast their votes to elect the Grand Wizard as President, and now they are whining that they are Misunderstood?
Seriously, New York Times, you printed this? Good luck finding a new reading audience, this lifelong reader is DONE.
When you do your lifestyle article about the belles of the southern ball, ask them if know how many of my LGBT brothers and sisters have beaten to death IN THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF, in the name of the new Fuhrer. (Crickets). Of course they don't know, nor do they care. But you can't install a dicator and then claim you have no blood on your hands.
With their votes, Trump supporters called the battle, but make no mistake, America, WE WILL BRING THE FIGHT.
It's war, now. And there ain't gonna be anything civil about it.
Let's see you print an article about THAT.
T
Seriously, New York Times, you printed this? Good luck finding a new reading audience, this lifelong reader is DONE.
When you do your lifestyle article about the belles of the southern ball, ask them if know how many of my LGBT brothers and sisters have beaten to death IN THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF, in the name of the new Fuhrer. (Crickets). Of course they don't know, nor do they care. But you can't install a dicator and then claim you have no blood on your hands.
With their votes, Trump supporters called the battle, but make no mistake, America, WE WILL BRING THE FIGHT.
It's war, now. And there ain't gonna be anything civil about it.
Let's see you print an article about THAT.
T
3
Nice one. Brilliant! I'm with you, and what you say is absolutely right. It's a war now.
I'm sure they would be glad to answer: zero. This supposed deluge of "hate crimes" is an absurd dramatization of teenage pranks and leftist false flags. It's the logical result of a victimhood culture where one is praised, comforted, and soothed while the other side is demonized in emails by University administrators 10 minutes after a hate crime report - no matter what the facts are.
And I'm still waiting to hear one thing that would typify Trump as anything but the most LGBT-friendly President we have ever had.
And I'm still waiting to hear one thing that would typify Trump as anything but the most LGBT-friendly President we have ever had.
3
2nd/last thought: The NYT contributing writer Timothy Egan noted on Friday: "In Portland, Ore., often called the whitest city in America, Trump pulled barely 17 percent of the vote in the county covering most of the metro area, and even less in the city proper. In Seattle, which is nearly 70 percent white, Trump is on track to get only 8 percent of the vote — a historic low for a major party nominee. Denver, which is 63 percent white, didn’t even give Trump one in five votes. And in San Francisco, with a black population of 6 percent, Trump finished in single digits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/the-other-white-people.html
The column wasn't open for comments which often seems to be the case for Mr. Egan; I don't know why. I don't agree with Mr. Egan as much as I agree with some other columnists but he always presents things in ways where I think his points are rational and worth listening to. I initially thought of him as Bernie-ish, but I realized that Mr. Egan kind of represents the "Bernie-ish Libertarian" of the U.S. West Coast. Of the current editorial writers, I think of him as the one square in the middle.
I think there are a lot of those Bernie-ish Libertarians all over the country, but IMO they're open to compromise unlike the All-or-Nothing Berners/Steiners (note: all Sanders/Stein voters aren't like that but they seem to be the most vocal). The Bernie Libs are all over the country now (hello, Austin!) and that's a voice the NYT does need to hear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/the-other-white-people.html
The column wasn't open for comments which often seems to be the case for Mr. Egan; I don't know why. I don't agree with Mr. Egan as much as I agree with some other columnists but he always presents things in ways where I think his points are rational and worth listening to. I initially thought of him as Bernie-ish, but I realized that Mr. Egan kind of represents the "Bernie-ish Libertarian" of the U.S. West Coast. Of the current editorial writers, I think of him as the one square in the middle.
I think there are a lot of those Bernie-ish Libertarians all over the country, but IMO they're open to compromise unlike the All-or-Nothing Berners/Steiners (note: all Sanders/Stein voters aren't like that but they seem to be the most vocal). The Bernie Libs are all over the country now (hello, Austin!) and that's a voice the NYT does need to hear.
5
Yes. Better campaign coverage is needed. I do however, find the lack of introspection with regard to the coverage given to Secretary Clinton very puzzling. The Times reporting on any and all email stories was, to put it mildly, breathless. There was little or no discussion or comment about her likely policies if elected. The Times was no different than most of the television coverage. There was a "false equivalence" created between the two candidates and an effort to "normalize" Donald Trump's comments that was beyond the pale. One statement made on the front page of the Times stands out in my mind. I forget who the writer was, but in the print edition of the Times that I received that day..it was something like "Donald Trump stretched the truth" regarding some issue relating to Secretary Clinton. The fact was, and the article was edited for the digital edition, because the comment was just wrong. He lied, that was the bottom line, not that he "stretched the truth". This is my argument with the Times. I believe that your efforts to be too even handed helped anoint the most unqualified person to ever be elected to the Presidency of the United States.
4
I often wondered how the comments section of NYT articles could be so overwhelmingly liberal. And I mean really overwhelmingly liberal.
Now I have a clue. I made a comment about 3 hours ago and it has yet to appear. There was nothing off color or unacceptable in
it. But it did not follow the liberal line of thinking.
I wonder if this one will appear.
Now I have a clue. I made a comment about 3 hours ago and it has yet to appear. There was nothing off color or unacceptable in
it. But it did not follow the liberal line of thinking.
I wonder if this one will appear.
3
Well first the NY Times put a notice on it's front page that says “you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century” and “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”
It followed that up in the following months providing nothing but ideologically biased opinion as "news. At the same time it buried or ignored negative stories about Clinton. It did all this as a concerted effort in an attempt not to "inform", but rather to actively swing the election for Hillary.
Huge numbers of Americans and others around the world now distrust "The Old Gray Lady", and, the "Old Gray Lady" deserves that distrust.
If you want to earn trust back then fire the whole editorial board and 75% of your "journalists." Replace them with people who understand that "opinions" go on the "opinion" page and not in articles. Teach them what the 5 "W"s of reporting are: "Who", "What", "When", "Where", "hoW". And ruthlessly edit out anything in their "news" articles that are not directly answering one of the 5 "W"s.
A "Journal" is for writing "opinions", "feelings", and "experiences" in. "Journalists" today produce content suitable only for their personal "journals."
Fire the "Journalists". Bring back Reporters.
It followed that up in the following months providing nothing but ideologically biased opinion as "news. At the same time it buried or ignored negative stories about Clinton. It did all this as a concerted effort in an attempt not to "inform", but rather to actively swing the election for Hillary.
Huge numbers of Americans and others around the world now distrust "The Old Gray Lady", and, the "Old Gray Lady" deserves that distrust.
If you want to earn trust back then fire the whole editorial board and 75% of your "journalists." Replace them with people who understand that "opinions" go on the "opinion" page and not in articles. Teach them what the 5 "W"s of reporting are: "Who", "What", "When", "Where", "hoW". And ruthlessly edit out anything in their "news" articles that are not directly answering one of the 5 "W"s.
A "Journal" is for writing "opinions", "feelings", and "experiences" in. "Journalists" today produce content suitable only for their personal "journals."
Fire the "Journalists". Bring back Reporters.
4
Hillary Clinton is literally a criminal. the media ignored, and is still ignoring, that fact.
4
No, she isn't, Gmason. But you think she is. And THAT is the problem.
2
Thanks for this reflective piece, showing again why the Public Editor position at the Times is so valuable.
My take on one issue:
People seem very angry at the Times about the 86% chance that Nate Cohn and the Upshot team gave Hillary to win on the morning of Nov. 8. I think this is because a lot of people, like me, weren't happy with the outcome, but also because they don't have good internal ways to understand probabilities, and they took consistently high estimates of her chances as some kind of guarantee. You can still lose, as Ms. Clinton unfortunately did, when the odds are 86-14 in your favor. I watched Kevin Durant, an 87% career free throw shooter, brick a free throw last night. And I thought the Upshot's regular effort to help people understand their current estimated probability by referring us to a familiar sports event like missing a field goal, was a useful idea, but obviously didn't sink in with everyone.
My take on one issue:
People seem very angry at the Times about the 86% chance that Nate Cohn and the Upshot team gave Hillary to win on the morning of Nov. 8. I think this is because a lot of people, like me, weren't happy with the outcome, but also because they don't have good internal ways to understand probabilities, and they took consistently high estimates of her chances as some kind of guarantee. You can still lose, as Ms. Clinton unfortunately did, when the odds are 86-14 in your favor. I watched Kevin Durant, an 87% career free throw shooter, brick a free throw last night. And I thought the Upshot's regular effort to help people understand their current estimated probability by referring us to a familiar sports event like missing a field goal, was a useful idea, but obviously didn't sink in with everyone.
1
The NY Times died in this election cycle. Your temporary bump in circulation is just an aberration. A recent poll said that over 90% of people ignored the media when voting. The only thing journalism has is impartiality - you lost ALL credibility this election cycle. Yes go talk to the deplorable, who - when you look at a map - are 95% of the geography of the country
4
This is a very interesting psychological study of an organization: How cannot it not see its own bias, even as so many others attempt to make it understand?
Short anecdote: Several days into the transition and NYT cannot lay off its chosen theme: Trump's team is incompetent and wasting valuable time. Most of us are actually thinking it's an enormous job and speed is the enemy of quality. Take your time, get it right. So I add a comment something like "Still slamming Trump, I see" and, if you can believe it, NYT declined to publish it.
So, the bias extends all the way to the people whose job it is to approve comments.
I don't know why NYT cannot understand its own behavior, and as I said it is a very interesting study which may lead to some new understanding. But here we are in this strange new reality, and now more than ever we need accurate, balanced reporting, something we can trust. After hundreds of years of being that source, NYT is in the process of frittering it all away.
Short anecdote: Several days into the transition and NYT cannot lay off its chosen theme: Trump's team is incompetent and wasting valuable time. Most of us are actually thinking it's an enormous job and speed is the enemy of quality. Take your time, get it right. So I add a comment something like "Still slamming Trump, I see" and, if you can believe it, NYT declined to publish it.
So, the bias extends all the way to the people whose job it is to approve comments.
I don't know why NYT cannot understand its own behavior, and as I said it is a very interesting study which may lead to some new understanding. But here we are in this strange new reality, and now more than ever we need accurate, balanced reporting, something we can trust. After hundreds of years of being that source, NYT is in the process of frittering it all away.
4
Every time a newspaper, print, on-line, or both, expresses an opinion it diminishes the value of that paper in the honest reporting of news. I basically don't trust the NYT--I read parts of it for the sole purpose of belittling the opinions of its writers. But, on the other hand, I don't trust either any of the few right-leaning papers there are.
Newspapers-with-an-attitude have been around for a long time--in the 1790s, a guy name Benjamin Franklin Bache published a newspaper called the Philadelphia Aurora that was absolutely vicious toward the Federalist Party, and that was by no means the first--but that editorial bias has existed for a long time doesn't make it excusable.
Newspapers-with-an-attitude have been around for a long time--in the 1790s, a guy name Benjamin Franklin Bache published a newspaper called the Philadelphia Aurora that was absolutely vicious toward the Federalist Party, and that was by no means the first--but that editorial bias has existed for a long time doesn't make it excusable.
1
We don't judge Black Lives Matter by their most extreme supporters because the objective of the movement is a worthy one, protesting police brutality. Did Trump stand for much else apart from bigotry and racism and bullying and objectification of women? Did he speak coherently about economic policy or foreign policy? Hundreds of senior diplomats and officials who have previously served Republican administrations came together to call this man dangerously unfit to lead, should they "introspect" to? BLM protesters may have sometimes gone overboard with their tactics and rhetoric, but is it equal to a Presidential candidate attacking a Gold Star family in a cheap and vulgar way. People who voted Trump should introspect (if it not the hatred in their hearts that motivated them to vote Trump, what did?), not the New York Times.
2
Ms. Spayd: I have been a NYT reader for 63 years and have been extremely pleased, in general, with its reporting. Yes, the NYT was played by Trump but so were a lot of the media and, as it turned out, so were the voters. Even the finest restaurant puts out an occasional bad meal. The long term and continuing lying by the Republicans, carried to new heights by Trump, places an enormous burden on the press and has rendered the concept of "fair and balanced" outmoded. Lies must be called exactly what they are and phonies like Paul Ryan must be exposed. Many of the other comments refer to Bernie. In hindsight, he might have won since many voters have been conditioned to vote on an emotional basis and disregard facts and the need to propose workable solutions and not just complain. Regarding the women in North Carolina, why did they vote for Trump in the first place in the face of the extensive criticism from a wide swath of both Democratic and Republican leaders ? Perhaps it was his moral
rectitude and dignified behavior or his carefully wrought plans for how to meet the existing challenges the USA faces? Finally, in the face of infinite challenges and finite resources, the NYT still is a very fine newspaper, albeit, not perfect , and deserves continued support. Think of this way- what if it didn't exist? One area where I think the Times is still being played is using Arthur Brooks as an op-ed contributor.
rectitude and dignified behavior or his carefully wrought plans for how to meet the existing challenges the USA faces? Finally, in the face of infinite challenges and finite resources, the NYT still is a very fine newspaper, albeit, not perfect , and deserves continued support. Think of this way- what if it didn't exist? One area where I think the Times is still being played is using Arthur Brooks as an op-ed contributor.
2
I started following politics in the 60s. The network news staffs as well as those of the major nationally important papers have always been overwhelmingly leftist and have slanted their coverage to advance their desired narrative. The most revealing aspect of the MSNBC personality who fantasized on air about urinating in Sarah Palin's mouth was that the line was not an ad lib; it was scripted. Numerous people saw it but no one objected and stopped it. That reveals a liberal cocoon so steeped in hate and bias that it was no longer noticed. The supposedly extraordinary letter from the Times leadership was more about saying the Times will be self-reflective than actually being self-reflective.
One thing I've noticed since Ms. Spayd got here is that she uses all forms of the word liberal as almost a negative, and she uses the word all the time. Yet I don't see the equivalent negative connotation of conservative used here. I know it's a political year but I don't remember previous public editors Mr. Brisbane/Ms. Sullivan doing that.
Perhaps Ms. Spayd is trying to take the voice of some readers when she consistently uses the word liberal negatively but it seems strange not to ever seem to do the same with the word conservative or take issue with any conservative elements of the NYT - which leads me to:
"Still, too many of the voices, of both the regular columnists and even guest writers, are from people with similar views." I don't think that's true at all, especially of the guest writers. John Kasich? Peter Thiel? Mark Sanford? Gary Johnson? Just a few of the op-ed writers since the summer. Many of the college students writing in that new column said they're conservative.
Finally, how many of these readers are subscribers? There was a recent post to the public editor from someone saying he hadn't been to the Times in two years (he said he reads Breitbart now) but he was returning to his account once to complain. So did he pay for the NYT for two years without reading it - or was his registered user account just still active? I think Ms. Spayd is minimizing the bump in paid subscribers - some people may want to show support to the NYT. Couldn't that be possible?
Perhaps Ms. Spayd is trying to take the voice of some readers when she consistently uses the word liberal negatively but it seems strange not to ever seem to do the same with the word conservative or take issue with any conservative elements of the NYT - which leads me to:
"Still, too many of the voices, of both the regular columnists and even guest writers, are from people with similar views." I don't think that's true at all, especially of the guest writers. John Kasich? Peter Thiel? Mark Sanford? Gary Johnson? Just a few of the op-ed writers since the summer. Many of the college students writing in that new column said they're conservative.
Finally, how many of these readers are subscribers? There was a recent post to the public editor from someone saying he hadn't been to the Times in two years (he said he reads Breitbart now) but he was returning to his account once to complain. So did he pay for the NYT for two years without reading it - or was his registered user account just still active? I think Ms. Spayd is minimizing the bump in paid subscribers - some people may want to show support to the NYT. Couldn't that be possible?
4
Another pointless article from the "Public Editor". An unscientific selective summary of readers' views. Missing is any clear-eyed assessment of NY Times coverage, any critical view of reporting "Trump said this, Trump said that" instead of digging up pertinent facts. And of course, "they say this about Hillary and they say that", again without any awareness of the unimportance of this "Entertainment Tonight" species of reporting.
Underneath all this non-news reportage is the Times' unfortunate discovery that selling newspapers is readily divorced from providing news and divorced from serving the point of "freedom of the press", which includes the freedom from drivel and instead a focus upon mechanism.
Underneath all this non-news reportage is the Times' unfortunate discovery that selling newspapers is readily divorced from providing news and divorced from serving the point of "freedom of the press", which includes the freedom from drivel and instead a focus upon mechanism.
2
I am reminded of when the Times of years ago fell hook, line and sinker for a fake news story about an airline having people fly standing up.
They ran the whole story, even putting pictures of people standing up at ridiculous padded bars with seat belts around them in the middle of the front page.
Then apoligized for getting fooled.
Except this time was worse. They were the ones doing the fooling. They fooled themselves into thinking they were guaranteed to be right. And it was THEY who was trying to fool us time and again, as feet of clay appeared repeatedly in their idol, and they continued to bow down to it and tell us to.
If they will go back to telling me the news and just the news I'll keep reading!
They ran the whole story, even putting pictures of people standing up at ridiculous padded bars with seat belts around them in the middle of the front page.
Then apoligized for getting fooled.
Except this time was worse. They were the ones doing the fooling. They fooled themselves into thinking they were guaranteed to be right. And it was THEY who was trying to fool us time and again, as feet of clay appeared repeatedly in their idol, and they continued to bow down to it and tell us to.
If they will go back to telling me the news and just the news I'll keep reading!
2
All the media including you, NYC were the megaphone of one candidate's foul lying mouth unfiltered down with ambiguous titles. You never dig in real issue, just superficial scanty contents jumping one after another. I felt your fear of the bully and it was really SAD and helpless situation. US should have been the last country to be fearful, but you yielded miserably. The country's rapid deterioration from the epic effort of saving country by Obama is spectacularly on display right now. With all the fears and corruptions, the country's sudden DEATH is around the corner while liberals calling for soul searching. Only hope is electoral college, but you are not taking up this on serious level.
New York Times, you'd better to write your obituary free from the fear before you can print any longer. being Californian, I refused to go down all together: Caliexit!
New York Times, you'd better to write your obituary free from the fear before you can print any longer. being Californian, I refused to go down all together: Caliexit!
2
I support the Calexit movement! It's truly the only option for liberal values. We know the theories and ideas of the right are unscientific, wrong -- we don't have time to waste following them down their road to ruin. They are clueless people, the GOP, they dislike liberals and they dislike government and they want the rich to get richer -- that's it.
1
Yes, this article is evidence of how desperately the Times needs "fresh thinking." It is a continuation of the false equivalency that plagued reporting throughout the campaign - normalizing Mr. Trump's disgusting views and behaviors, not researching to uncover the truth, and now suggesting those who voted for him are "maybe not so bad." First, since 2008 the Times clearly under reported the desperation and humiliation of millions of people who lost their jobs, their savings, their homes and then families that crumbled under the stress. Wall Street bankers were back to normal and earning their bonuses again by 2010 while good, decent middle class people did not recover, and seemingly turned to Trump. One naturally wonders if Wall Street advertising dollars influence the NYT's view of whose perspective and voice should be reported. Now, the women of Charlotte don't recognize how they were maneuvered into voting for someone as aberrant as Donald Trump to be their leader. But it is the job of journalists not only to report that these NC women have a different view, but to dissect the forces (e.g. millions of dollars spent by billionaires intent on maintaining their power by destroying one woman.) I appreciate the recent focus on "false news" on Facebook and Google but where was this Times analysis 3 months ago when it might have protected our citizenry from a brutal mistake? In 30 years of reading, subscribing and trusting the New York Times I have never felt so betrayed.
3
There are many of us it seems. I too think that the Wall Street advertisers, and those advertising products for the Wall Streeters, are all the Times really concerns themselves with.
The Times need to scrap the management. Well, that won't happen, so I'll support Democracy Now and other journals that are trying to do good journalism.
The Times need to scrap the management. Well, that won't happen, so I'll support Democracy Now and other journals that are trying to do good journalism.
First, color didn't matter. Then, we got a colorblind society. Now, we have diversity. Diversity, the Holy Grail of what America looks like. And, if you don't support diversity, you're racist. Said. And, done.
The NYT, facing a catastrophic evaporation of subscribers and advertisers, believes they should try producing a better product. Stupid market forces. Butting into high thought and righteousness, with no room for government protection.
How's this for diversity, James Carville versus Dick Cheney? Ted Cruz versus Tim Kaine? Ben Carson versus Eugene Robinson? Sure, the colors are the same, but, remove racism from the conversation and you'll get some real diverse conversations. If your idea of diversity is how America looks, I can turn down the volume and watch their lips move.
The NYT, facing a catastrophic evaporation of subscribers and advertisers, believes they should try producing a better product. Stupid market forces. Butting into high thought and righteousness, with no room for government protection.
How's this for diversity, James Carville versus Dick Cheney? Ted Cruz versus Tim Kaine? Ben Carson versus Eugene Robinson? Sure, the colors are the same, but, remove racism from the conversation and you'll get some real diverse conversations. If your idea of diversity is how America looks, I can turn down the volume and watch their lips move.
1
". . . he doesn’t want his primary news source to stereotype half the country as racists."
That's part of the problem. No one should have a single "primary news source." Have several, or many. No single source will ever be sufficient.
That's part of the problem. No one should have a single "primary news source." Have several, or many. No single source will ever be sufficient.
3
I don't think the NYT has anything to apologize for in reporting on the election, except perhaps being as credulous as most people as to the reliability of polls. There was plenty of coverage on the variety among Trump supporters. There was plenty of coverage on Clinton's baggage and on the sources of Sanders's support [I was a supporter]. The NYT is entitled to have an editorial position and to express it. As for the women in NC, in many ways they are probably admirable and personally much nicer than I am. However, they must have understood the kind of person the President-Elect is and what his administration would attempt to do. If they did and voted for him anyway, then what conclusions are we supposed to draw?
2
Is it possible that the Times is reporting the news as is, but the perspectives of many readers has changed? With personalized feeds of 'information' reflecting assessed 'interests', it is easy to confuse facts and position.
This reader wonders if his Times - where Hillary Clinton's travails seemed to occupy nearly every mention of her name - may not have reached those other readers? Perhaps they missed nearly every Maureen Dowd column or Ross Douthat shaking his head in print over the Democratic candidate.
I hope the Times does not take the suggestion to revisit its approach to news gathering differently because groups of readers with education, a Southern address and the belief that changes in voting laws aren't racist would like others to find their belief to be a fact.
This reader wonders if his Times - where Hillary Clinton's travails seemed to occupy nearly every mention of her name - may not have reached those other readers? Perhaps they missed nearly every Maureen Dowd column or Ross Douthat shaking his head in print over the Democratic candidate.
I hope the Times does not take the suggestion to revisit its approach to news gathering differently because groups of readers with education, a Southern address and the belief that changes in voting laws aren't racist would like others to find their belief to be a fact.
2
Why doesn't the NY Times do some investigative journalism and try to discover the root cause of Trump's victory and perhaps participate in helping solve those root cause?
Why not start to investigate why American workers are priced out of the world market? Why not find out what the cost drivers are that have caused our Labor Force Participation Rate to sink to such depths? I can tell you that salaries are not the main cause, but I think you won't believe me and will have to pee on the electric fence.
Why not start to investigate why American workers are priced out of the world market? Why not find out what the cost drivers are that have caused our Labor Force Participation Rate to sink to such depths? I can tell you that salaries are not the main cause, but I think you won't believe me and will have to pee on the electric fence.
1
The New York Times failed primary coverage, general election coverage, and is in the process of failing post election coverage. The President elect has just paid out $25 million dollars in a legal settlement! Why isn't that the top news story instead of some silly spat over Hamilton? I'm sure to be saying this a thousand times over (hopefully only) the next four years, but can anyone possibly imagine how that story would be treated differently if it was Hillary making a similar payment? The difference is astounding. Wake up NYT!
1
We've seen this before;
"Dean Baquet, and its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., sent an extraordinary post-election letter to subscribers that was in part an attempt to assure readers there was some self-reflection going on in the newsroom about its coverage."
Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it then the big "BUT". Which assures us poor readers who may not have a degree in journalism, that the above mentioned people really don't care what us folk think or care about.
Just another day in journalism 101...
"Dean Baquet, and its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., sent an extraordinary post-election letter to subscribers that was in part an attempt to assure readers there was some self-reflection going on in the newsroom about its coverage."
Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it then the big "BUT". Which assures us poor readers who may not have a degree in journalism, that the above mentioned people really don't care what us folk think or care about.
Just another day in journalism 101...
3
I think to be fair the NYT is a better source than a lot of what's out there. With that said, NYT can still be MUCH better than it is.
I wish that each article would ask both sides of an issue to describe and explain their position in their own words. I have seen VICE achieve this multiple times. NYT can do it too. Attacking a straw man does not encourage people to communicate with their opponents, and I feel strongly that we should avoid being in a echo chamber.
I think the journalists at this newspaper need to consider if they want to report a narrative or if they want to report reality. I believed the narrative that Hillary Clinton was virtually certain to win the election. I wish I hadn't.
I wish that each article would ask both sides of an issue to describe and explain their position in their own words. I have seen VICE achieve this multiple times. NYT can do it too. Attacking a straw man does not encourage people to communicate with their opponents, and I feel strongly that we should avoid being in a echo chamber.
I think the journalists at this newspaper need to consider if they want to report a narrative or if they want to report reality. I believed the narrative that Hillary Clinton was virtually certain to win the election. I wish I hadn't.
1
What those women are saying is that they voted for Donald despite his hateful rhetoric. That implies they discounted it as acceptable behavior. But Donald's language is not acceptable. He insults people for fun and has opened the door for middle school kids to do the same. Donald's bullying is degrading the level of discourse and the moral standing of this country. It is no excuse that he offered some amorphous and undefined change.
2
Editors:
Don't back down on Trump, despite what a skewed demographic sample of deplorable white, "educated" women in North Carolina report.
Trump is an abomination. Appalled shock is the only sane reaction to the outcome of this election.
Citizens who support him, or even bother to rationalize their support of him, have abdicated responsibility for protecting the humanistic values and institutions of our democracy. This is a victory for naked political extremism. There can be no compromise without culpability.
Don't back down on Trump, despite what a skewed demographic sample of deplorable white, "educated" women in North Carolina report.
Trump is an abomination. Appalled shock is the only sane reaction to the outcome of this election.
Citizens who support him, or even bother to rationalize their support of him, have abdicated responsibility for protecting the humanistic values and institutions of our democracy. This is a victory for naked political extremism. There can be no compromise without culpability.
1
The New York Times has lost all credibility as an objective source of news. Now, it is no different than FOXNews or Breitbart on the right, or Huffington Post on the left. I had a bet with my wife during the campaign: I would give her $1000 if, at any point, I saw that the New York Times wrote a serious article about Donald Trump's positions on any issue. They didn't have to support the issue, it just had to be dealt with on its own merits without personal attacks on the candidate. I still have my thousand bucks.
3
Ms Spayd,
Sorry to tell you but your correspondents from Charlotte are not the innocents they purport to be. You and they should watch Tess Rafferty's viseo. She explains far better than I can why these voters are the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic people they deny they are.
Their candidate who lied at every occasion has inspired the highest rates of anti-semitism in this country since the '30's, legal immigrant children are terrified they will be deported (taunts by schoolyard bullies), minorities of all races are intimidated by white nationalists.
Ms. Spayd, in your "balanced" reporting you do not and have not called them out. You do not support a bully who makes racist, mysogonistic statements unless you are sympathetic. Enough of this painting lipstick on xxxx to dress this behavior up!
I expect more of the Times.
Sorry to tell you but your correspondents from Charlotte are not the innocents they purport to be. You and they should watch Tess Rafferty's viseo. She explains far better than I can why these voters are the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic people they deny they are.
Their candidate who lied at every occasion has inspired the highest rates of anti-semitism in this country since the '30's, legal immigrant children are terrified they will be deported (taunts by schoolyard bullies), minorities of all races are intimidated by white nationalists.
Ms. Spayd, in your "balanced" reporting you do not and have not called them out. You do not support a bully who makes racist, mysogonistic statements unless you are sympathetic. Enough of this painting lipstick on xxxx to dress this behavior up!
I expect more of the Times.
2
Full disclosure - I do not subscribe to the NYT, but I read it, just as when I was in the military I read Pravda, because it was the public voice of the enemy.
Wait, does that mean I just called the NYT the enemy? No, it's just that liberal progressivism is the natural enemy of a free United States. How can I possibly say that? See the results of this most recent election. Those of us in flyover country - I'm from Indiana, I live in Oklahoma now - don't see the country the way the self-proclaimed elites in the cities do.
You call us dumb, uneducated hicks. We're the ones who run the farms that provide your food. We're the ones who run the factories that make the endless supply of goods you consume. We're the ones who supply the materials that you and your cities need to survive. Perhaps we are dumb - we continue to do so, because you see, we still consider ourselves to be part of the greatest nation on this planet. We don't give out participation trophies, we know life isn't fair, and we believe in God, America, and Apple Pie. And we just elected Donald Trump as President, because we're fed up with the direction this country was headed.
What most of you fail to understand - and I see it here in some of these comments as well - is that we did NOT support Trump, not at first. But we saw how biased the media coverage was. We saw how coverage of Bernie winning an election was skewed in terms of how it would affect the inevitable Hillary victory. And we said, no.
Wait, does that mean I just called the NYT the enemy? No, it's just that liberal progressivism is the natural enemy of a free United States. How can I possibly say that? See the results of this most recent election. Those of us in flyover country - I'm from Indiana, I live in Oklahoma now - don't see the country the way the self-proclaimed elites in the cities do.
You call us dumb, uneducated hicks. We're the ones who run the farms that provide your food. We're the ones who run the factories that make the endless supply of goods you consume. We're the ones who supply the materials that you and your cities need to survive. Perhaps we are dumb - we continue to do so, because you see, we still consider ourselves to be part of the greatest nation on this planet. We don't give out participation trophies, we know life isn't fair, and we believe in God, America, and Apple Pie. And we just elected Donald Trump as President, because we're fed up with the direction this country was headed.
What most of you fail to understand - and I see it here in some of these comments as well - is that we did NOT support Trump, not at first. But we saw how biased the media coverage was. We saw how coverage of Bernie winning an election was skewed in terms of how it would affect the inevitable Hillary victory. And we said, no.
2
So you sent the country swirling down the drain because you didn't like the news coverage?
Why can't you just do like the rest of us and research on your own? I like my news unbiased, but this paper doesn't owe me anything. There are less biased news sources.
You decided a racist, misogynistic, narcissist was ok to put in office because your panties were in a knot and you couldn't be bothered to support news you trusted.
Genius.
You're irresponsible with your duty to your country and fellow citizens. Now you get to live with the consequences. One of those consequences is people think you're a racist.
Also, the media put out plenty of lies about Hillary, but you don't care about that. You got your protest vote in. I hope that feeling lasts for 4 years.
Why can't you just do like the rest of us and research on your own? I like my news unbiased, but this paper doesn't owe me anything. There are less biased news sources.
You decided a racist, misogynistic, narcissist was ok to put in office because your panties were in a knot and you couldn't be bothered to support news you trusted.
Genius.
You're irresponsible with your duty to your country and fellow citizens. Now you get to live with the consequences. One of those consequences is people think you're a racist.
Also, the media put out plenty of lies about Hillary, but you don't care about that. You got your protest vote in. I hope that feeling lasts for 4 years.
2
Seems to me the Times has a way to go to clean up its act. The coverage of Trump's tweets re the Hamilton business is grossly execessive on a weekend when he met with Indian business associates and invited foreign official to his DC hotel for a snow job, and agreed to pay $25 million to settle a fraud case because, as he noted, if it had gone to trial he might have had to pay much more.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks, and not get distracted by shiny objects. OK?
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks, and not get distracted by shiny objects. OK?
4
There is not a shred of evidence that Trump is racist, homophobic, etc. etc. When Progressives have lost the argument all they can do is sputter and call you names. We can look forward to their impotent bleatings for the next 8 years of a Trump administration.
5
If you allow an outside source such as the NYT to define you I feel very sorry for you. After all the NYT is basically nothing. Everyone should clearly understand that the NYT is not really a news source, but rather a propoganda organ for globalism and progressiveness. Both of these are damaging to US citizens and should be rejected according to me.
2
I appreciate this article after the tone-deaf, self-congratulatory one from Messrs. Baquet and Sulzberger Jr.
I've always loved reading the Times, and I'm a liberal, but even I felt that the full story was not being told fairly for all sides. I felt that the populace was not being educated about the full scope of the issues.
Besides the campaign, how many million dollar homes can we read about while the metro section gets smaller and smaller? I know the NYT is an international paper, but we are also New Yorkers. Why should we not have well written stories about our own city?
The comments are the true jewel of this crown; often I skip the article and read the comments first.
And it still seems, after this election, as though there's a liberal scream coming from this paper. The other day I started reading the Guardian, NPR (web) and the Christian Science Monitor. And I'll be looking for other sources. If my subscription wasn't paid for by my job, I would have dropped the Times already.
This is the best paper in the world, or at least it used to be. It's time to stop resting on your laurels and get back to real journalism (which includes, by the way, playing in the sandbox with other newspapers on major stories so that you're not left in the starting gate while they are miles down the track). We need you now more than ever.
I've always loved reading the Times, and I'm a liberal, but even I felt that the full story was not being told fairly for all sides. I felt that the populace was not being educated about the full scope of the issues.
Besides the campaign, how many million dollar homes can we read about while the metro section gets smaller and smaller? I know the NYT is an international paper, but we are also New Yorkers. Why should we not have well written stories about our own city?
The comments are the true jewel of this crown; often I skip the article and read the comments first.
And it still seems, after this election, as though there's a liberal scream coming from this paper. The other day I started reading the Guardian, NPR (web) and the Christian Science Monitor. And I'll be looking for other sources. If my subscription wasn't paid for by my job, I would have dropped the Times already.
This is the best paper in the world, or at least it used to be. It's time to stop resting on your laurels and get back to real journalism (which includes, by the way, playing in the sandbox with other newspapers on major stories so that you're not left in the starting gate while they are miles down the track). We need you now more than ever.
5
Since the election there have been lots of stories about how the Trump transition is in disarray. But Obama didn't appoint any cabinet members in his transition until December. Was Obama in disarray? Is the Times providing this context in their stories? Trump as president elect sneaked out to have lunch without the press and was vilified. Barack and Michelle Obama sneaked out of the White House while he was president and was lionized for getting in touch with the people. Nothing has changed at The Times. As somebody said, if liberals didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.
3
Of course you had to cherry-pick which emails you followed up on. I imagine it was the only way to avoid addressing the absolute torrent of messages sent to you and the times about the disastrous over-hyping of the Clinton email non-scandal that drowned out both significant and real criminal actions on the part of her opponent as well as any actual issues that she was trying to talk about through the entire campaign.
2
Great column. A lot of this slant comes from the underlying idea that only one legitimate view of the world exists. Whatever that view might be, that only one can exist.
1
I always enjoy reading the "comments" section of articles like this. One of the first things that jumps out at me is the surprising number of commenters (and I would guess that they are regular NYT readers) consider anyone who voted for Trump to be a racist, period. No more information needed: you voted for Trump, therefore your are a racist. This is interesting for at least two reasons: by my observation the Times, and its readers, take pride in their belief that they represent a more intelligent, sophisticated class. So I am surprised to see this type of knee jerk reaction on their part. There are racists in every walk of life, and the election of Trump is a very complicated manner that goes well beyond simplistic conclusions. This leads me to the second reason: it is ironic that those who see the world through this type of racial prism, and would therefore, presumably, want to do everything they could to eliminate bigotry, would be unaware that they themselves have almost certainly played a role in the election of Trump. The backlash against their ideological inflexibility is at least partially responsible for Trump's narrow victory.
3
Right. Because Trump is so flexible and unifying.
I 100% believe anyone who is ok with what Trump has said and done is racist. You can't think a racist should be president, then act like you aren't racist. If you agree with a racist, you're a racist. If the KKK backing him didn't turn you off right that second, you're a racist.
Any of the remarks he made would have disqualified anyone else. But they didn't. Because other racists and people who want to pretend they aren't racist backed him.
Almost my entire family is racist and I would never back them if they publicly said anything he said. I would call them out every time. Because that's what people who aren't racist do. The only reason I don't call them out every time in private is because they are whiney babies and either get mad at being called out or they just do it more to try and make me mad. Hmmm.....that sounds a lot like what people are doing now.....
But hey, I'll give trump voters the benefit of the doubt from now on. They aren't all racist. Some are misogynistic. Others xenophobic. Then we have the good ol anti-Semites. Either way you slice it, that isn't anyone I want to associate with.
I 100% believe anyone who is ok with what Trump has said and done is racist. You can't think a racist should be president, then act like you aren't racist. If you agree with a racist, you're a racist. If the KKK backing him didn't turn you off right that second, you're a racist.
Any of the remarks he made would have disqualified anyone else. But they didn't. Because other racists and people who want to pretend they aren't racist backed him.
Almost my entire family is racist and I would never back them if they publicly said anything he said. I would call them out every time. Because that's what people who aren't racist do. The only reason I don't call them out every time in private is because they are whiney babies and either get mad at being called out or they just do it more to try and make me mad. Hmmm.....that sounds a lot like what people are doing now.....
But hey, I'll give trump voters the benefit of the doubt from now on. They aren't all racist. Some are misogynistic. Others xenophobic. Then we have the good ol anti-Semites. Either way you slice it, that isn't anyone I want to associate with.
1
the quote: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."
An admittedly stupid remark during a Presidential campaign, But how did this statement evolve into all Mexicans are rapists and murderers?
An admittedly stupid remark during a Presidential campaign, But how did this statement evolve into all Mexicans are rapists and murderers?
1
The monoculture that is the MSM is going or gone full stupid -the staff in SF, NYC or Boston is out of touch with the citizens of this mostly great country.
They see themselves as superior and righteous - their arrogance will be their downfall.
They see themselves as superior and righteous - their arrogance will be their downfall.
2
I find it hard to believe that Cindy in NC feels it is even worth asking for her voice to be heard. Given the overt bias of the times, a black man has a better chance to be heard by the editor of the Klan Times. I am a Trump voter, and have anMBA from Chicago, have lived in NYC, LA, Berlin and Mexico City (both legally) and to the Times and the majority of your readers, i am deplorable at best and a racist at worst. I would suggest you seek out some diversity in your writers, or go the way buggy whip.
1
I don't think you understand what racist means. Nothing in your description of yourself has anything to do with not being a racist.
1
Thanks Elisha, you just proved my point perfectly. Your argument is I must prove that I am not a racist, versus "of course you are not a racist". That is nothing more than a refresh of the "have you quit beating your wife...or in your case your dogs?"
Have you, Ms. Spayd, spoken with Executive Editor Baquet for an on-the-reoord response the the complaints that the Times through your office has been receiving?
If not. That is an unforced error.
Editor Baquet needs to be at the forefront of the response and corrective actions.
...And so does Publisher Sultzberger.
If not. That is an unforced error.
Editor Baquet needs to be at the forefront of the response and corrective actions.
...And so does Publisher Sultzberger.
2
I'll say it again - it is ridiculous that the NY Times continues to keep a moderated comments section. Also, that comments are only offered on a limited number of pieces. I posted two responses to op-ed pieces this am around 9am and they are still waiting to be moderated!
I'll be calling to cancel my paid subscription to the NY Times - not because of your coverage but because of your antiquated ability to pivot with what is expected of a media website!!
I'll be calling to cancel my paid subscription to the NY Times - not because of your coverage but because of your antiquated ability to pivot with what is expected of a media website!!
2
One comment finally made it at 2:05pm Sunday afternoon. The other never made it - perhaps to scathing for the prim NY Times.
And I did cancel my paid subscription!
And I did cancel my paid subscription!
So far we have Sessions, Flynn, and Bannon, the rhetoric is now reality and our national nightmare is only beginning, hate crimes are parabolic, the victims are organizing into resistance, the right is already fully armed and formed into militias, foreign countries like China are firing shots across our bow, and political discord has been quantitatively measured against the 1850's. A short time from now we will face repeal of the ACA, privatization of Medicare, plundering of our Treasury from massive tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to education, cuts to our already too thin safety net, and a complete disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor. The GINI index, already flashing revolutionary signals will rise ever higher.
We are in a reflexivity circular causation downward spiral from which there is no exit, the left and centrists need to consider whether they will accept one party rich white men rule, as the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering ensure a totalitarian authoritarian state that will subdue the rising masses, or, what they will sacrifice in sweat and blood to restore the values we cherish.
The only fault of the NYT is their previous shaping of the liberal view, thus when they finally sounded the alarm their voice of truth was diminished, discredited through previous partisanship.
We are in a reflexivity circular causation downward spiral from which there is no exit, the left and centrists need to consider whether they will accept one party rich white men rule, as the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering ensure a totalitarian authoritarian state that will subdue the rising masses, or, what they will sacrifice in sweat and blood to restore the values we cherish.
The only fault of the NYT is their previous shaping of the liberal view, thus when they finally sounded the alarm their voice of truth was diminished, discredited through previous partisanship.
I appreciate the attempt at introspection. It's important, and hopefully the organization will take the postmortem to heart.
I've been a loyal reader for perhaps a decade now, and I still believe NYT is one of the best papers. But lately, it seems that's only because the standard has been lowered across the industry. The Times is obligated to maintain its integrity.
This article ignored fake news stories that probably had an outsized impact on the election. Also, I've been finding many more typos in recent years. And the opinion writers seem out of touch with the country at large and would benefit from an injection of competing voices.
Impartiality is also important, but there is a difference between objectivity and declining to include negative reporting of public actors for fear of being labeled 'biased.' The tail should not wag the dog.
Better reporting would have painted a more accurate picture of the American landscape, and informed us about the likelihood of the outcome we're left with.
Despite NYT's relative superiority, I find myself turning more and more to alternate news sources to just balance out my worldview--AP, WSJ, WAPO, Guardian, NPR. In expanding my news diet, I have realized where the Times' gaps in coverage are and understand why many are turning to alternative 'news' sources. A giant like the Times ought to drown out the noise with professional, comprehensive, objective reporting that speaks truth to power.
I've been a loyal reader for perhaps a decade now, and I still believe NYT is one of the best papers. But lately, it seems that's only because the standard has been lowered across the industry. The Times is obligated to maintain its integrity.
This article ignored fake news stories that probably had an outsized impact on the election. Also, I've been finding many more typos in recent years. And the opinion writers seem out of touch with the country at large and would benefit from an injection of competing voices.
Impartiality is also important, but there is a difference between objectivity and declining to include negative reporting of public actors for fear of being labeled 'biased.' The tail should not wag the dog.
Better reporting would have painted a more accurate picture of the American landscape, and informed us about the likelihood of the outcome we're left with.
Despite NYT's relative superiority, I find myself turning more and more to alternate news sources to just balance out my worldview--AP, WSJ, WAPO, Guardian, NPR. In expanding my news diet, I have realized where the Times' gaps in coverage are and understand why many are turning to alternative 'news' sources. A giant like the Times ought to drown out the noise with professional, comprehensive, objective reporting that speaks truth to power.
2
After reading these comments, I feel compelled to add one of my own.
Many of you regard anyone who voted for Donald Trump as a racist and an irredeemable human being. You need to get out more.
Although I am a Republican, I did not vote for Donald Trump. In fact, I had letters published in this newspaper and the WSJ denouncing him as a demagogue.
Still, I respect people who voted for him because they couldn't abide a third Obama administration. I, too, am one of the very angry voters whom we heard so much about during the campaign.
I am angry about Obama’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. I’m angry about the way he unconstitutionally pushed through the Iran nuclear agreement (obviously a“treaty”) against the will of a majority of Congress and the public. I’m angry about the mess that is the Affordable Care Act, now imploding before our eyes. I am angry about this administration’s lawless use of executive power, as exemplified at its most absurd and arrogant by its efforts to impose transgender bathrooms on every school district in the country, under a statute that expressly authorizes sex-segregated toilet and shower facilities.
All of this wasn’t enough to make me vote for Trump given his character as shown during the campaign. (I fervently hope he will be a different president than he was a candidate.) But condemning everyone who made a different judgment in weighing the bad alternatives as a racist is bigotry, pure and simple.
Many of you regard anyone who voted for Donald Trump as a racist and an irredeemable human being. You need to get out more.
Although I am a Republican, I did not vote for Donald Trump. In fact, I had letters published in this newspaper and the WSJ denouncing him as a demagogue.
Still, I respect people who voted for him because they couldn't abide a third Obama administration. I, too, am one of the very angry voters whom we heard so much about during the campaign.
I am angry about Obama’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. I’m angry about the way he unconstitutionally pushed through the Iran nuclear agreement (obviously a“treaty”) against the will of a majority of Congress and the public. I’m angry about the mess that is the Affordable Care Act, now imploding before our eyes. I am angry about this administration’s lawless use of executive power, as exemplified at its most absurd and arrogant by its efforts to impose transgender bathrooms on every school district in the country, under a statute that expressly authorizes sex-segregated toilet and shower facilities.
All of this wasn’t enough to make me vote for Trump given his character as shown during the campaign. (I fervently hope he will be a different president than he was a candidate.) But condemning everyone who made a different judgment in weighing the bad alternatives as a racist is bigotry, pure and simple.
5
The most astonishing thing I saw in the aftermath of the election was the report from exit polling that 18% of Trump voters found him unqualified to do the job. What could possibly go wrong with that!
As for Obama "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq," the withdrawal date was agreed upon by the Bush adminstration with its deliberately chose Shiite President in Iraq, Nuri Al Maliki. The Obama Administration tried to negotiate a continued presence, but Maliki refused a new Status of Forces Agreement, without which American soldiers would not have had immunity from Iraqi law, which was obviously a deal breaker.
As for Obama "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq," the withdrawal date was agreed upon by the Bush adminstration with its deliberately chose Shiite President in Iraq, Nuri Al Maliki. The Obama Administration tried to negotiate a continued presence, but Maliki refused a new Status of Forces Agreement, without which American soldiers would not have had immunity from Iraqi law, which was obviously a deal breaker.
On the Iraq issue, see this New Yorker piece by Dexter Wilkins, former NYT correspondent.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind
Also, this piece by Ali Khadery, the longest serving American diplomat in Iraq.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lo...
However many times Obama's apologists trot out the misleading arguments you make, Obama's responsibility for the Iraq disaster is inescapable.
And by the way, if a Status of Forces agreement was so critical, how come Obama sent our soldiers back to Iraq without one?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind
Also, this piece by Ali Khadery, the longest serving American diplomat in Iraq.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lo...
However many times Obama's apologists trot out the misleading arguments you make, Obama's responsibility for the Iraq disaster is inescapable.
And by the way, if a Status of Forces agreement was so critical, how come Obama sent our soldiers back to Iraq without one?
Ms. Spayd, you've said all the right things here. Thank you.
Still, writers like Maggie Haberman continue to include personal opinions in their supposed journalistic articles. We all know that Ms. Haberman was shown in emails leaked by Wikileaks to "tee up" articles for the DNC/Clinton campaign at Politico. Please know that we still see her using her articles as a platform for opinions here at the Times.
Still, writers like Maggie Haberman continue to include personal opinions in their supposed journalistic articles. We all know that Ms. Haberman was shown in emails leaked by Wikileaks to "tee up" articles for the DNC/Clinton campaign at Politico. Please know that we still see her using her articles as a platform for opinions here at the Times.
1
Considering that it was the new York Times that 'broke' the email story beyond repair with it's very first try, needing to walk back the entire thing within hours, I find this particular exercise at navel gazing to be particularly misguided.
1
If anything the NYT didn't go far enough in denouncing Trump as a racist conman who managed to convince enough people that he was the answer to all their problems. Like most media outlets they became fixated with the Clinton's emails non-story (my bet is that no one will ever mention it again now that the election is over), and all the nonsense about the Clinton foundation, wasting resources that could have gone to further exposing all the lies that Trump was feeding his potential voters. Why is it that only now we hear about the role that Facebook fake news played in the election? Why do we just now discover that the Trump campaign was telling the rust belt working class that he would bring their jobs back (an lie)? Why do only now we hear all the horrors about Steve Bannon and all the other men that are getting lollipop jobs at the new administration as a reward for their loyalty?
4
The tenor of NYT campaign coverage suggested you were mainly afraid of offending the Upper West Side. You're a national paper, but you exerted no energy attempting to capture a national point of view. The tone and attitude of the op-ed page in aggregate became ridiculous; I tend to agree with Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, and even Brooks, but all wrote as if Trump supporters were faraway moon men they monitored in horror via telescopes. The paper's firmly blinkered view of the world has done the world, including the Upper East Side, an enormous disservice.
1
Thank you for this article. I too was very disappointed with the Times coverage of the election. I count on this paper to do responsible and accurate reporting. The percentage banner on my news feed everyday stoked false complacency and will be a lasting reminder of how out of touch this publication was. I hope it can change, but agree with those commenters who have yet to see evidence of that. Please go talk to the group of women. I'd like to hear their perspective and understand them better. Because right now my trusted news sources just aren't covering people and stories like theirs, which must be more representative and important than the liberal media has led us to believe.
Voters rejected the racially divisive Clinton campaign. We have learned to tune out the Times coverage. Trump will convince liberals of his skills by his actions
1
I share the dismay over the persistent projection that Clinton was the all-but-certain winner. I suspect it came from statistically valid data; a piece detailing that, would be helpful. And I would agree that not all Trump's supporters belong in the basket of deplorables. But those who don't, admit it: Trump spewed an astonishing volume of deplorable ideas and bragged about engaging in deplorable behavior, so it shouldn't take much soul-searching to understand why people who supported him would be regarded with suspscion by those who did find those statements deplorable.
2
There's usually more than one factor involved for why anything happens, and Trump's rise is no different.
But there is plenty of blame to go around, both in the propaganda attacking the Clinton name for decades and the unwitting media that has given DJT far too much general attention with rarely enough detail on a single issue.
In retrospect, instead of not taking him seriously from the beginning, the news media should have aggressively taken him apart. Anyone from the Northeast has known he is a "sleaze" since at least the 80s. But the media handled him with kid gloves and laughed him off. Whoops!
Oddly, there was so much negative material on Trump that it was too hard to focus. He was able to pass it all off as lies, and the cultic status he cultivated through his circus rallies made each new allegation seem like desperate left-wing smears to his supporters.
Meanwhile, Hillary disappeared unless evil "email" was being referred to. This was everyone's fault.
Even Hillary's best bumper sticker used "Trump" in it instead of her own name.
But there is plenty of blame to go around, both in the propaganda attacking the Clinton name for decades and the unwitting media that has given DJT far too much general attention with rarely enough detail on a single issue.
In retrospect, instead of not taking him seriously from the beginning, the news media should have aggressively taken him apart. Anyone from the Northeast has known he is a "sleaze" since at least the 80s. But the media handled him with kid gloves and laughed him off. Whoops!
Oddly, there was so much negative material on Trump that it was too hard to focus. He was able to pass it all off as lies, and the cultic status he cultivated through his circus rallies made each new allegation seem like desperate left-wing smears to his supporters.
Meanwhile, Hillary disappeared unless evil "email" was being referred to. This was everyone's fault.
Even Hillary's best bumper sticker used "Trump" in it instead of her own name.
4
Your article is exactly the problem we had with media coverage of the election. Trump got free media coverage all along because he helped ratings and the real stories were never covered. Here you are pandering to white nationalists who are backtracking on their presidential choice because they are threatening to cancel their times subscriptions.
The media played a huge role in this election by putting ratings ahead of unbiased coverage. Trump boosted readership because he is so outlandish, so sensational so like nothing we have ever seen we were all sucked in and lost sight of what was really happening: a white nationalist movement.
Your readers who voted for trump who is undoubtedly who he says he is, a bigot, a white nationalist etc...need to own their vote and look inward to see who they really are and what their vote truly represented.
The media played a huge role in this election by putting ratings ahead of unbiased coverage. Trump boosted readership because he is so outlandish, so sensational so like nothing we have ever seen we were all sucked in and lost sight of what was really happening: a white nationalist movement.
Your readers who voted for trump who is undoubtedly who he says he is, a bigot, a white nationalist etc...need to own their vote and look inward to see who they really are and what their vote truly represented.
5
Public editor Liz Spayd commits three journalistic sins here: she takes her source, Cindy Capwell, at her word; she fails to consider the context; and she failed to consult with the bureau closest to the ground. (On that last, insert cost of downsizing here.)
She claims not to be a homophobe but lives in Charlotte, NC. Charlotte had an anti-discrimination ordinance until its former mayor, Pat McCrory, elected governor, signed into law SB2, the notorious "bathroom bill." The main provisions of SB2 was not who could use what bathroom; it was to make it illegal for any municipality or county in NC to have an ordinance which prevented discrimination based on gender orientation. SB2 was and is a pro-discrimination bill. McCrory, the Republican legislators who passed it, and anyone who voted in this past election for them, Capwell very much included, is a homophobe.
I'm sure she has gay (and perhaps other minority) neighbors and workmates. It's the old "some of my best friends ..." self-delusion. I doubt every German who voted for Hitler would have voted to murder 6 million Jews. But they were all personally responsible for the Holocaust just as Capwell will be personally responsible for Trump's actions
By all means talk to her -- but do not let her off the hook.
She claims not to be a homophobe but lives in Charlotte, NC. Charlotte had an anti-discrimination ordinance until its former mayor, Pat McCrory, elected governor, signed into law SB2, the notorious "bathroom bill." The main provisions of SB2 was not who could use what bathroom; it was to make it illegal for any municipality or county in NC to have an ordinance which prevented discrimination based on gender orientation. SB2 was and is a pro-discrimination bill. McCrory, the Republican legislators who passed it, and anyone who voted in this past election for them, Capwell very much included, is a homophobe.
I'm sure she has gay (and perhaps other minority) neighbors and workmates. It's the old "some of my best friends ..." self-delusion. I doubt every German who voted for Hitler would have voted to murder 6 million Jews. But they were all personally responsible for the Holocaust just as Capwell will be personally responsible for Trump's actions
By all means talk to her -- but do not let her off the hook.
5
Nothing but hand wringing. The NYT is already back to its job as a propaganda organ for the liberal left. Let the deplorables eat cake.
1
if i did talk with mrs capwell, i suspect she would tell me that 1) she and her friends are life long republicans, and 2) they "just couldn't" support the "fundamentally dishonest, corrupt, etc" hillary clinton. if i am expected to accept that, despite voting for a man who takes delight in spewing playground worthy taunts against minorities, women, and the disabled, they do not hold such views themselves, i expect in return some acknowledgement from them that mrs clinton is smart, hardworking, experienced in public service and undeserving of the character assassination they seem to have bought into so completely.
2
The word "racist" gets used a lot in this discussion. Can we agree that there are degrees of "racism," and that to make (racial or other) progress one needs to work with people who are not 100% pure of the curse? (Barack Obama understood this about his own saintly grandmother, Madelyn Dunham.)
If Donald Trump and his more enlightened supporters want to think of themselves as not 'racist," that's fine with me. Maybe they will, as a consequence, behave more tolerantly.
What should have disqualified Trump, on day one, was his extended exploitation of "birtherism," dating to 2011. His questioning of Barack Obama's citizenship proved Trump to be unqualified to make the kind of important evidence-based judgment essential in a President. Or Trump was cynically and unpatriotically promoting a lie, trolling for followers among the most prejudiced and least educated of his fellow Americans.
It would be difficult to deny that what Trump was doing here was appealing to racist sentiment in order to gain mass political appeal. Those who defend Mr. Trump should have to confront what it. They may not be "racist," HE may not be 100% pure racist, but he exploited and encouraged racism. Why would any Trump voters want to be associated with something so un-American?
Trump's behavior here prefigured the slippery dishonesty of the con man we saw throughout his campaigning. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitte...
If Donald Trump and his more enlightened supporters want to think of themselves as not 'racist," that's fine with me. Maybe they will, as a consequence, behave more tolerantly.
What should have disqualified Trump, on day one, was his extended exploitation of "birtherism," dating to 2011. His questioning of Barack Obama's citizenship proved Trump to be unqualified to make the kind of important evidence-based judgment essential in a President. Or Trump was cynically and unpatriotically promoting a lie, trolling for followers among the most prejudiced and least educated of his fellow Americans.
It would be difficult to deny that what Trump was doing here was appealing to racist sentiment in order to gain mass political appeal. Those who defend Mr. Trump should have to confront what it. They may not be "racist," HE may not be 100% pure racist, but he exploited and encouraged racism. Why would any Trump voters want to be associated with something so un-American?
Trump's behavior here prefigured the slippery dishonesty of the con man we saw throughout his campaigning. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitte...
4
First - I come from a family of six, and my best friend likewise. He and I are both ardent Clinton supporters, but the rest of both families are all enthusiastic Trump supporters. The two things they all have in common: 1) they're racist (obvious by words and attitudes), 2) they violently disagree that they're racist. I'd bet my last dollar those ten white women in North Carolina fit the same profile.
Second - there's been a lot of hand-wringing about how and why the polls got it "so wrong". But what if they didn't? 65% of people asked in exit polls said that Trump was unfit to be President. Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin. Trump won by narrow margins in a handful of swing states. How did that happen? In Florida, Trump had a slim lead with only 25% of the votes reported in Miami-Dade. On Fox, Charles Krauthammer insisted to Bill O'Reilly that Trump was going to lose Florida when those votes were counted. But instead, Trump pulled away. The same thing happened in Michigan with Wayne County, in Wisconsin with Milwaukee, and in Pennsylvania with Pittsburgh. Has anyone at the NYT pursued this?
Second - there's been a lot of hand-wringing about how and why the polls got it "so wrong". But what if they didn't? 65% of people asked in exit polls said that Trump was unfit to be President. Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin. Trump won by narrow margins in a handful of swing states. How did that happen? In Florida, Trump had a slim lead with only 25% of the votes reported in Miami-Dade. On Fox, Charles Krauthammer insisted to Bill O'Reilly that Trump was going to lose Florida when those votes were counted. But instead, Trump pulled away. The same thing happened in Michigan with Wayne County, in Wisconsin with Milwaukee, and in Pennsylvania with Pittsburgh. Has anyone at the NYT pursued this?
2
I voted for Hillary, but my message for the Times is to eliminate all of your OpEd talking heads. For the last 12 months there was one oped after another denouncing Trump and repeating the same general argument in this paper and around the media about why Trump should not be president. Even for someone who generally agrees with the point, it became too much and I cringed everytime I had to scroll past the OpEd headlines as each talking head competed to be more outraged than the next. Please leave the punditry to MSNBC and Fox News and focus on the journalism.
2
In August, my local college library began offering NYT digitally to students and faculty. Having been a reader of the NYT for almost 40 years, I was astonished to find myself questioning this decision on grounds that NYT was too one-sided and how could the library claim it was a source of the highest quality news; opinion was infiltrating news stories. I still subscribe but our relationship is badly damaged. I now buy the weekend edition of the WSJ (the book reviews are better, I discovered; and the op-ed page is pleasantly mind-bending). The publisher's letter in the NYT acknowledging bias was insufficiently forthright. Time will tell whether The Times will continue it descent to the level.od the WaPo. I think the new focus of the digital edition is partially to blame for all this.
4
Sure, sure, I believe the NYT claims of increased subscriptions about as much as I believe 90% of their page 1 stories - i.e. very little if at all. Virtually every headline and article oozes bias and self-righteous condescension. And clearly from the words of their ideologue publisher, no changes are in store much less in sight.
2
I commend Public Editor for taking notice that a huge number of readers consider the Times’s coverage of Donald Trump to be biased and unfair, with personal attacks and charges of racism and sexism leveled against the candidate and his supporters. Ignoring the fairness issue, as a liberal who wants to win the next election, my biggest problem with this is that it is counterproductive: it will increase, not decrease, the chance that Trump will be re-elected.
Recall that Republicans (egged on by media allies like Rush Limbaugh) reacted to Clinton’s Lewinsky and Whitewater affairs with impeachment. This played well with their angry base, but Americans in the heartland simply didn’t care and Republicans ended up the losers. Now we see the same echo chamber in reverse in your relentless focus on Trump’s sexual and business practices. Readers in the NY/DC corridor cheer them on, but hard working Americans in the heartland don’t care about that when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and prestige. If you don’t believe me, check out the latest election returns in Wisconsin and Michigan.
That Is why the spin on the Hamilton story in today’s paper is so depressing. Reasonable people see that the VP paid money to see a Broadway show and ended up being harassed by people who don’t like his politics. But the two Times articles offered encouragement which will only lead to further harassment. So the cycle continues. Now ask yourself: how do you think your coverage will play in Peoria?
Recall that Republicans (egged on by media allies like Rush Limbaugh) reacted to Clinton’s Lewinsky and Whitewater affairs with impeachment. This played well with their angry base, but Americans in the heartland simply didn’t care and Republicans ended up the losers. Now we see the same echo chamber in reverse in your relentless focus on Trump’s sexual and business practices. Readers in the NY/DC corridor cheer them on, but hard working Americans in the heartland don’t care about that when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and prestige. If you don’t believe me, check out the latest election returns in Wisconsin and Michigan.
That Is why the spin on the Hamilton story in today’s paper is so depressing. Reasonable people see that the VP paid money to see a Broadway show and ended up being harassed by people who don’t like his politics. But the two Times articles offered encouragement which will only lead to further harassment. So the cycle continues. Now ask yourself: how do you think your coverage will play in Peoria?
2
I understand the voter anger. But Con Don the pathological liar was the wrong boogeyman. As all cons do, he got elected by manipulation. The media failed to stop him at the early stage of primary as he started spreading populist rhetoric and fear without any had substance. Bravo to NY Times that they were one of the few outlets with balanced coverage. While con Don's machine spreading hate and fear mongering messages and substance less populist rhetoric, majority of the media closed there eyes for rating. For them, entertainment and division were more important than our great nation since it improved rating. Now, the nation will suffer from horrible consequences because of the election of an insecure morally bankrupt leader.
2
The ladies from Charlotte remind me of the old joke "I ain't prejudiced, I just hate blacks and Jews."
3
From a female university professor friend who voted for Trump, "I loathed the choices I had to make and actually was sick to my stomach at the polls, but in the end, the policies prevailed and I had to vote the way I did...I grieve for my friends and colleagues who now feel unsafe because of his bigotry and misogyny. But there are other ways I can support them and combat that issue without sacrificing the policies I align with...I could not sacrifice the Supreme Court votes (which with Clinton appointees would be so one-sided there would be no thoughtful dissent), nor could I sacrifice religious liberties and my own understanding of morality and scripture..I am cognizant that I can't hold someone who is not a Christian (or who lives it out differently, whether I agree or not) accountable to the same standards I hold. But I also don't think that I should have to sacrifice my own convictions in order for that person to have his or her rights."
This woman is a nuanced intellectual who carefully considered the options. Feel free to disagree with her but if you don't at least have respect for her, I don't think there's much future in civil conversation between you and people like her, who oh by the way, elected this president. It deeply saddens me to see liberal intolerance. It is an oxymoron.
This woman is a nuanced intellectual who carefully considered the options. Feel free to disagree with her but if you don't at least have respect for her, I don't think there's much future in civil conversation between you and people like her, who oh by the way, elected this president. It deeply saddens me to see liberal intolerance. It is an oxymoron.
2
Funny, after being called racist, (for ever being against an Obama policy, etc), for being called an islamaphobe for believing American interests could be far better served by helping Sryian suffering in Syrian rather than bringing them all here, a xenophobe for wanting a secure border, and a sexist (hysterical given the circumstances) for not wanting Hillary for President.
The point is, logic would dictate that no one would want to be called such things, and may address those concerns by limiting speech or actions, to become more introspective on issues. However, logic and reality also dictates that after being called that incessantly, the effectiveness of the words decreases to the point of being meaningless.
So the Media can keep calling everyone names which relegates their power to meaningless.
The point is, logic would dictate that no one would want to be called such things, and may address those concerns by limiting speech or actions, to become more introspective on issues. However, logic and reality also dictates that after being called that incessantly, the effectiveness of the words decreases to the point of being meaningless.
So the Media can keep calling everyone names which relegates their power to meaningless.
3
Few bought that Trump would be more of a dictator and a bigot than Obama was. We were forced to go elsewhere to get the details about the Democratic Party's treason for money, healthcare terrorism and the enslavement of our people to a record debt throught high taxation.
Shame in your intellectual dishonesty and bias.
Shame in your intellectual dishonesty and bias.
1
still haven't seen a positive story about Trump in the NYT since the election, so the 100% negative number of stories still stands. Nothing has changed at the NYT and nothing will. smh
1
They are supposed to just report what is going on, and they are doing that with Trump, even UNDER reporting his corruption.
Please count me in as a liberal reader of the Times who found/finds the coverage an echo chamber of like-minded ideas.
These days I read the Times and then watch Fox news because otherwise there is no way for me to know what the two sides think.
I hate to tell you - but SOMETIMES Fox has more balanced coverage! that is really saying something!!
These days I read the Times and then watch Fox news because otherwise there is no way for me to know what the two sides think.
I hate to tell you - but SOMETIMES Fox has more balanced coverage! that is really saying something!!
4
I am a former newspaper reporter and a life long Democrat. I did not vote this year because I felt both major party nominees were unfit to be president. I voted for Sanders in the primary and voted twice for Obama.
As the election recedes, it is becoming clearer to me that this election exposed basic problems with the system of electing presidents. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know the DNC, nominally dedicated to neutrality in the primary, did all it could to tilt the scale for Clinton and against Sanders.
Like any others, I was distressed by the Times's election coverage. During the Democratic primary the paper's coverage was blatantly biased against Sanders and for Clinton.
And after Trump got the GOP nomination, the paper indulged in an out and out effort to demonize him. In all my years as a reporter and following politics I had never seen anything like the jihad the Times and other media waged against Trump.
Yet another fault line is the elecotral college. Due to this example of the founding fathers' hostillity toward democracy, we now have our second president in 16 years who lost the popular vote.
One aspect of the electoral system has failed this year. Trump will take the oath of office as head of a political/media system that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
As the election recedes, it is becoming clearer to me that this election exposed basic problems with the system of electing presidents. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know the DNC, nominally dedicated to neutrality in the primary, did all it could to tilt the scale for Clinton and against Sanders.
Like any others, I was distressed by the Times's election coverage. During the Democratic primary the paper's coverage was blatantly biased against Sanders and for Clinton.
And after Trump got the GOP nomination, the paper indulged in an out and out effort to demonize him. In all my years as a reporter and following politics I had never seen anything like the jihad the Times and other media waged against Trump.
Yet another fault line is the elecotral college. Due to this example of the founding fathers' hostillity toward democracy, we now have our second president in 16 years who lost the popular vote.
One aspect of the electoral system has failed this year. Trump will take the oath of office as head of a political/media system that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
2
I do not judge Trump supporters based on his most extreme supporters. I judge them based on the person they support.
5
It's not just the NYT that's out of touch, add NPR, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC and all "the [Sunday] shows" to the list too. You all *still* do not get it.
3
But, FOX News, Daily Caller and Breitbart do get it?
1
I have two children and I teach critical thinking to several of our friends' children.
The Upshot's notorious election night forecast is for me a teachable moment, as is the Times' continued (even today) relentlessly slanted coverage of Trump.
One will never guess for example that a certain Southern Rebican nominee for Attorney General was the man who as AG of a Deep South state, destroyed the KKK in his state. Of course not: Trump likes him, ergo he's a white supremacist.
The critical thinking errors shown by the Times' editors and writers are:
- confirmation bias
- ignoring obvious facts (cf Sessions' prosecutions of the Klan; 1/3 of Latino voters going for Trump; millions of Obama 2012 voters switching in 2016 to vote for Trump; Trump's lifelong history as a liberal Democrat; eyc etc)
- dismissing opposing views out of hand
- substituting sarcasm and insults and for reasoned engagement using logic applied to evidence
- denial of reality
The Upshot's notorious election night forecast is for me a teachable moment, as is the Times' continued (even today) relentlessly slanted coverage of Trump.
One will never guess for example that a certain Southern Rebican nominee for Attorney General was the man who as AG of a Deep South state, destroyed the KKK in his state. Of course not: Trump likes him, ergo he's a white supremacist.
The critical thinking errors shown by the Times' editors and writers are:
- confirmation bias
- ignoring obvious facts (cf Sessions' prosecutions of the Klan; 1/3 of Latino voters going for Trump; millions of Obama 2012 voters switching in 2016 to vote for Trump; Trump's lifelong history as a liberal Democrat; eyc etc)
- dismissing opposing views out of hand
- substituting sarcasm and insults and for reasoned engagement using logic applied to evidence
- denial of reality
1
The New York Times and the rest of the media set the stage for this coup by eagerly running with the falsehoods that Washington is "broken", and that our politicians are bought and paid-for, and that our government exists to further enrich the 1%. None of that is really true, but it's easy to believe, and you had a responsibility to provide some balance to that issue. That is where I believe you failed.
1
Ohhh that is the TRUTH.
I blame Bernie for that, he is the one that Trump stole his campaign schtick from.
Bernie kept saying all those things, then Trump picked up Bernie's torch, including calling Hillary and the Democratic party corrupt.
I blame Bernie for that, he is the one that Trump stole his campaign schtick from.
Bernie kept saying all those things, then Trump picked up Bernie's torch, including calling Hillary and the Democratic party corrupt.
This insightful and fair minded column has inspired me to resubscribe to the New York Times. Thank you for listening to your readers and for recognizing that there is a strong thirst for the New York Times to be a real newspaper rather than an echo chamber.
I've been considering canceling my subscription to the Times since the election. I cancelled briefly once before in protest over coverage of Bernie and Hilary. I would never have voted for Bernie, I voted for Hilary, but the headlines and even writing have gotten to a Fox News level of bias and presumption.
Just now I read about the alt-right group meeting and there were several sentences saying the group is for white supremacists, but I couldn't find a single quote or policy position that would support that. There was one mention that they want to end immigration and allow European immigrants, but that was the one sentence of substance in a long article of regurgitated "everyone who supports Trump is racist" laziness. Being anti immigration does not equal white supremacy, and if you think it does you need to do more to show that.
A couple more observations, the front page headline of "Transition in disarray after senior official resigns." I got annoyed when I clicked on the article and couldn't find any evidence of disarray, the only thing known was that the individual had resigned. And Steve Bannon- you would think he wrote every article himself on breitbart. The only quote I've seen used in the paper is the "turn on the hate" bit, which in full context is fine.
If I tell readers to turn on the hate towards the editors of NYT when they reinforce conservative stereotypes and liberal biases, would you say I'm pro-hate too? If I was a republican, I think you would.
Just now I read about the alt-right group meeting and there were several sentences saying the group is for white supremacists, but I couldn't find a single quote or policy position that would support that. There was one mention that they want to end immigration and allow European immigrants, but that was the one sentence of substance in a long article of regurgitated "everyone who supports Trump is racist" laziness. Being anti immigration does not equal white supremacy, and if you think it does you need to do more to show that.
A couple more observations, the front page headline of "Transition in disarray after senior official resigns." I got annoyed when I clicked on the article and couldn't find any evidence of disarray, the only thing known was that the individual had resigned. And Steve Bannon- you would think he wrote every article himself on breitbart. The only quote I've seen used in the paper is the "turn on the hate" bit, which in full context is fine.
If I tell readers to turn on the hate towards the editors of NYT when they reinforce conservative stereotypes and liberal biases, would you say I'm pro-hate too? If I was a republican, I think you would.
2
This article is wrong. The Times' mistake was false equivalency, not under-representing the views of conservatives. If only those conservatives could handle the truth about trump, perhaps they would have shown their reasonableness by not voting him in. Clearly, the Times does not have this figured out yet (nor do I), but it failed to demonstrate/communicate just how terrible trump is by reporting the truth, and its aim is merely to print the truth. That is, if anything, they did not report the truth enough.
6
I do believe the Times has this in common with CNN (and Fox and others). It's the commitment to a "narrative" come hel or high water, facts or no facts. Mainstream media on both sides seems to have stopped reporting news and only reports narratives. Stop with the narratives (the white fraternity boys raped the black girl, Sanders' has no chance to win, Trump supporters are deplorable, people won't vote for Hilary because she is a woman) -- stop it all and try reporting objectively and let the readers draw conclusions, in the same way that we ask politicians and business people to avoid conflict of interests, let's keep opinions only on the Opinion page!
2
The Gray Lady needs to clean house, shake things up by purging a lot of out-of-touch dead weight. It's an echo chamber of smug coastal elites, led by editors that obviously telegraph their biases. I cancelled my sub because every day a columnist was more or less calling half of my family dumb racist flyover rubes. Factor workers in the Midwest, who voted for Obama twice, go to church every Sunday, and send their kids to diverse public schools aren't racist. But one-percenter columnists that that live in multi-million dollar homes in 98% white Scarsdale or NW D.C., send their kids to private high schools and Ivy League colleges, and don't associate with anyone that lacks an elite degree just might be.
3
There's a major flaw here. Let's talk about echo chambers. All of the post-election evidence indicates that the non-urban white and non-college-educated white turnouts for Mr. Trump weren't significantly different than they were for Mr. Romney. What was different, although it's hard to hear this in your echo chamber, was the massive voter suppression of Clinton voters by an organization paid for by the Republican right, which by the way operated in the open, collaborated with state governments run by Republicans, and didn't even pretend to be doing anything else. It might not be a terrible idea to renew your subscription to the Times and give up Fox News for awhile, along with the alt-right websites you might favor. But you won't do any of that. "I'm entitled to my own facts." No, you're entitled to your opinions. Here's what you did. You voted for a candidate who will take away my civil liberties, over which you surely won't lose any sleep since I live in one of those horrible "coastal elite" places you find so disturbing and belong to a couple of minorities you probably don't much like.
1
It's interesting to see how many of the comments insist that Trump supporters are racist, even though more than 200 counties who voted for Obama -- twice -- flipped over to Trump. So, having voted for an African-American, they suddenly become "racist" when they fail to vote for a candidate who is, at best, unattractive, and who has very little to say about their real-life grievances?
As far as NYT is concerned, I think the real problem is not the paper's liberal slant (readers must surely know what they're getting) or even the coverage of Trump and Clinton, but rather, the sense you get on almost every story, that there is a Preferred Narrative that has been established in advance by the editors and that the coverage must comport with, regardless of where the actual events or evidence goes. That Preferred Narrative is heavily laced with political correctness and almost always involves a Search For A Victim. Thus the Times increasingly becomes a kind of Non-Fiction Novel, responding to real life and with some kind of approximation to it, but with the plot already figured out ahead of time. Throw in a more than generous dash of smug condescension (hello, Friedman and Kristof) and you have a fairly irritating end product.
As far as NYT is concerned, I think the real problem is not the paper's liberal slant (readers must surely know what they're getting) or even the coverage of Trump and Clinton, but rather, the sense you get on almost every story, that there is a Preferred Narrative that has been established in advance by the editors and that the coverage must comport with, regardless of where the actual events or evidence goes. That Preferred Narrative is heavily laced with political correctness and almost always involves a Search For A Victim. Thus the Times increasingly becomes a kind of Non-Fiction Novel, responding to real life and with some kind of approximation to it, but with the plot already figured out ahead of time. Throw in a more than generous dash of smug condescension (hello, Friedman and Kristof) and you have a fairly irritating end product.
9
What a disappointment! I started reading this piece and was amazed that the paper was allowing an employee to call it out for biased coverage. I needn't have concerned myself. A "tint" of bias? Please! Subscriptions? NYT has to spin that issue. The NYT is the godhead of 'progressive' bias which flows throughout the media. And even in this piece the paper praises its balanced coverage.
Sure, I will read the Times when I can look at it for free. But I refuse to pay a dime to perpetuate. The sooner it folds the better.
Sure, I will read the Times when I can look at it for free. But I refuse to pay a dime to perpetuate. The sooner it folds the better.
5
I very much appreciate the Public Editor column, the Opinion page, and The New York Times news reporting. There are two things that concern me every day when I read the online version: click-bait headlines, and the constant stream of unnecessary photos of the President-elect. The click-bait headlines I don't need to elaborate on; they are obvious and those who write them know it. Regarding the photos, it is a fact that many of us clinch up inside at a mere glimpse, and who doesn't know what he looks like? The image is regularly in our nightmares, and every additional image intensifies our anxiety level. Each article does not need a photo. How about longer, more informative headlines in place of photos of scary old white men? It does seem that sometimes The NY Times tries too hard to put forth right-wing perspectives rather than hard news. I do favor human rights, clean air and water, and education, and hope to continue to read reporting in depth on those things.
1
You voted for Trump - I am tired of trying to see things your way while you sit in your holier-than-thou churches/white power meetups, refusing to see things mine.
Did I just lump you in with white supremacists? No, you did that to yourselves.
You voted for the same candidate as the KKK.
You voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK.
For the rest of your life, you have to know that you voted the same way as the KKK. Does that feel good to you? Here’s a hint – it really shouldn’t, especially if you call yourself a Christian.
I’m tired of pussy footing around what offends your morals while couching what offends mine, because racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia offend mine.
Let me say it right here – if you voted for Trump, I do think you are a racist. I do think you’re homophobic. I do think you’re a misogynist. Racism, and homophobia, and misogyny are all a spectrum, and you’re on it.
You might not be a ‘cheering while a black man gets lynched’ racist, but boy, did you just sell them the rope and look the other way.
Tess Rafferty - Aftermath
Did I just lump you in with white supremacists? No, you did that to yourselves.
You voted for the same candidate as the KKK.
You voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK.
For the rest of your life, you have to know that you voted the same way as the KKK. Does that feel good to you? Here’s a hint – it really shouldn’t, especially if you call yourself a Christian.
I’m tired of pussy footing around what offends your morals while couching what offends mine, because racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia offend mine.
Let me say it right here – if you voted for Trump, I do think you are a racist. I do think you’re homophobic. I do think you’re a misogynist. Racism, and homophobia, and misogyny are all a spectrum, and you’re on it.
You might not be a ‘cheering while a black man gets lynched’ racist, but boy, did you just sell them the rope and look the other way.
Tess Rafferty - Aftermath
3
Well that pretty much nails it. Thank you.
1
These ladies might not think they're racist, but it doesn't really matter because they enabled a racist campaign that was heavily supported by racists. I would like to have seen more pieces like what was published last Sunday discussing voters views, but let's not go overboard on disparaging the times coverage.
4
As someone who grew up in the South and travels there often, I have to say that the Public Editor is very naive in taking the statement of the women from North Carolina at face value.
Of course Southerners don't think they're racist. But somehow race works its ways into everyday conversations all the time. And Southern racism expresses itself in unspoken ways too. Remember when the president of Emory University (the president of Emory University!) praised the Three-Fifths Compromise as an example of the way leaders can reach agreement? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/education/emory-university-president-r...
And even if these women agree with some of the things Trump says he stands for, why would they vote for him when he spouts such nasty racist stuff, includes confirmed racists in his inner circle, and inspires racist and far-right organizations? At they very least, they tolerate racism like, sadly, the great majority of white Southerners.
Of course Southerners don't think they're racist. But somehow race works its ways into everyday conversations all the time. And Southern racism expresses itself in unspoken ways too. Remember when the president of Emory University (the president of Emory University!) praised the Three-Fifths Compromise as an example of the way leaders can reach agreement? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/education/emory-university-president-r...
And even if these women agree with some of the things Trump says he stands for, why would they vote for him when he spouts such nasty racist stuff, includes confirmed racists in his inner circle, and inspires racist and far-right organizations? At they very least, they tolerate racism like, sadly, the great majority of white Southerners.
6
Dear Public Editor, The times needs to stop writing pieces denigrating data journalism. There was a variety of things that 538 pointed out that the times missed but as far as I can tell, the only articles focused on data journalism from the times was to say 'they got it wrong' (like your house is in complete order). I would also like to single out Jim Rutenberg as being particularly pretensive and dismissive. When he got something wrong, he made sure to take everyone with him.
Maybe they should think about the fact that they voted for the same candidate as the KKK.
They voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK.
They voted for the candidate, who holds the same political views as the KKK.
The CEO of his campaign, Steve Bannon, admitted that he was giving the White Supremacists a platform at Breitbart.
and again, they voted the same way, as the KKK.
But, they want you to know they are not racist.
They voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK.
They voted for the candidate, who holds the same political views as the KKK.
The CEO of his campaign, Steve Bannon, admitted that he was giving the White Supremacists a platform at Breitbart.
and again, they voted the same way, as the KKK.
But, they want you to know they are not racist.
4
Times' coverage not only crossed the line; it erased it into unhinged advocacy that belongs on the editorial page. So did the Post - and as someone who has skin in the game and clients who relies on my forecasts the utter decimation of Democratic candidates occurred in no small part because the great middle : The Sensible Center simply had it with the baseless racist ; xenophobic et al allegations,
Reminds me of when I was playing quarterback : defensive backs talked trash ; who,e losing on the scoreboard. Scoreboard: Republicans now control 34 governors mansions ; 68 of 99 legislative chambers ; and the power to maintain US House control through redistrcting if things don't change. And a Senste supermajority for the R's is in reach in 2018.
So those of us trying to move the ball on issues like renewable energy would appreciate it if the editorials would stay on that page ; and lose he hypocrisy of claiming to be anti- stereotyping while being the worst offenders - alienating potential allied is no way out of the hole you've dug.
Reminds me of when I was playing quarterback : defensive backs talked trash ; who,e losing on the scoreboard. Scoreboard: Republicans now control 34 governors mansions ; 68 of 99 legislative chambers ; and the power to maintain US House control through redistrcting if things don't change. And a Senste supermajority for the R's is in reach in 2018.
So those of us trying to move the ball on issues like renewable energy would appreciate it if the editorials would stay on that page ; and lose he hypocrisy of claiming to be anti- stereotyping while being the worst offenders - alienating potential allied is no way out of the hole you've dug.
If the NYT really wants to make change, get rid of fake conservative David Brooks and hire a real one. Brooks is a Trump-hating liberal, and he has already set his narrative for writing about the Trump presidency. He is doing the same thing that this piece just argued against.
2
The new subscriber brag sounds like spin. What's the retention rate after the 99 cent new subscriber promo expires? How many valuable long-time subscribers did you lose over the last year?
2
The times failed by pushing the email story so aggressively without evidence that it was illegal or unethical, while writing very little about trump's many illegal and unethical issues. Shame on the times for legitimizing the super sizing of a trivial matter.
4
There was bias in the election coverage, but it primarily was seen in the negative coverage of Clinton. Whining is the respite of bullies like Trump, and his supporters. The media distorted its depiction of Clinton's e-mail scandal (sic) in order to keep what looked like a blowout election as close as possible. Its motive was not political, it was financial. Keep the race going and the revenues flowing. That the Times is publishing Spayd's fatuous lament is a case in point of the media's bending over backwards to appear impartial, even when journalistic ethics demand truth before balance. I recall a front page piece on Ivanka and Donald Trump unveiling their plan for childcare assistance. They openly lied-- yes lied-- about Clinton's not having a plan and never having even thought of helping working families needing childcare. The NYT reporting this as "stretching the truth," a phrase that implies there was some truth being stretched. There was no truth at all to the Trumps' overt and bald faced lies. There are legion examples of the press doing this. I'd be happy to discuss this with the Capwells, who shouldn't be exculpated for electing an entirely unqualified and incapable bigot to the presidency. I have a message for the Capwells and the North Carolina daughters of the confederacy who claim not to be racist, homophobic bigots. You are bigots, and your support of bigots isn't justifiable, and if you'd like to talk more about that, bring it on.
5
This is absurd. Is the NYT setting its readers up for a shift towards pleasing Trump and his administration? The NYT did not even vet Trump. It ignored the corruption of his foundation and stayed away from reporting in earnest his tangled business dealings and numerous lawsuits that pose more of an ethical threat than the Clinton Foundation ever could have. But only now is Donald being vetted somewhat but after the fact. We heard more about emails than anything else. And that did as much to suppress Clinton's vote as did Comey and the Russians. I hear a lot of Trump voters who claim that America has become too soft, too much PC and that they are sick of hearing about safe spaces. So why then are they complaining the loudest when Trump Is bashed and criticized? Not all Trump voters are racist BUT all Trump voters knew that he is. So please, NYT, spare me your coddling of the Trump voter. That's not your job.
5
This piece is spot on, and will drive the liberal elites nuts. Too soon, maybe? The apology letter was insincere and failed to even mention the illegal posting of Trump's tax returns. The NYT staff were on the same mission as nearly every other media source - destroy Trump. Unbiased integrity is like virginity - once it is gone, it's gone. The only way to begin to repair the damage is to get rid of most of the opinion writers, starting with Blow and Krugman. Drain that swamp!
6
Bump in subscriptions? Not really. A few days after the election, NYT offered a free month's subscription WITH NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED. So lots of us NYT loathers who wanted to wallow in schadenfreude signed up.
3
One aspect of the election is not addressed in the article or comments. While many comments call Trump voters racist just for voting for him, they don't look at the total picture.
I may represent many Trump voters. First I did NOT vote for Trump in the primary. As a matter of fact I wanted any one of the other GOP candidates to get the nomination because I felt his nomination would make Hillary a shoo in for the presidency.
But once the nominations were over and it was Hillary against Donald I held my nose and supported Donald. Why? Because Hillary has proven herself to be greedy, lieing, incompetent, and law breaking. I know many do NOT accept this description but there is just too much evidence.
When Donald won my reaction was relief, not elation, relief that the Clintons would not inhabit the White House again. But now I'm beginning to warm to a Trump presidency. He's become more presidential ( whatever that means ). And his first few picks for his Cabinet and advisors are very encouraging. So I will support him until I have good reason not to.
I suggest others do the same. That does not mean you must agree with everything he does but at least try to be balanced in looking at his presidency.
I may represent many Trump voters. First I did NOT vote for Trump in the primary. As a matter of fact I wanted any one of the other GOP candidates to get the nomination because I felt his nomination would make Hillary a shoo in for the presidency.
But once the nominations were over and it was Hillary against Donald I held my nose and supported Donald. Why? Because Hillary has proven herself to be greedy, lieing, incompetent, and law breaking. I know many do NOT accept this description but there is just too much evidence.
When Donald won my reaction was relief, not elation, relief that the Clintons would not inhabit the White House again. But now I'm beginning to warm to a Trump presidency. He's become more presidential ( whatever that means ). And his first few picks for his Cabinet and advisors are very encouraging. So I will support him until I have good reason not to.
I suggest others do the same. That does not mean you must agree with everything he does but at least try to be balanced in looking at his presidency.
1
Sir, you make it difficult to believe you. You repeat all the standard baloney about Hillary Clinton being a liar and corrupt. The evidence is there for everybody to see. Why don't you cite some of your evidence of her corruption? You won't have much except what you can glean from fake news websites. (Oh by the way, Colin Powell told her how to set up her email server but you won't hear that from any of your sources of news.) Clinton tells the truth far more often than most candidates (which is to say despite the occasional whopper most of the time she tells the truth according to multiple independent observers), the Clinton Foundation isn't remotely corrupt and has done good deeds all over the world (and despite what you hear on Fox there is no evidence of pay-for-play), and if I were guessing I'd say you chose to vote for a candidate who shares your values and for whom you planned to vote all along. You'll probably feel the same way in four or eight years. Let us know if you feel the same when you reach retirement age. Unless you're very rich, you'll miss your Social Security and Medicare.
1
Dear Liz,
I also wish someone in the newsroom was more in line with you, including your publisher who, despite promises otherwise, continues to fire the flames of hatred against our president elect on your front page.
Just look at today's edition, one story after another about the over reaction of the left to outrageous fears about women's' rights and mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Just as there are bigots and haters on the left, there also are bigots and haters on the right. But every Trump supporter I personally know voted for him because of the unemployed; the underpaid; the forgotten middle class; the over-regulation and intrusion of the federal government on small business, farmers and ranchers; the failure of Obamacare and subsequent unaffordable health care premiums hitting the middle class; controlling immigration; and the corruption of the Clintons. To me, and all I know, it had absolutely nothing to do with racism or women's' rights.
The liberal left has so many platforms to continue this misrepresentation, from the NYT to Colbert to the shameful (non-conversation) dressing down of Mike Pence at the performance of Hamilton. All blasted across your front page as fact....Trump supporters are haters and bigots.
Not true, NYT, not true.
I also wish someone in the newsroom was more in line with you, including your publisher who, despite promises otherwise, continues to fire the flames of hatred against our president elect on your front page.
Just look at today's edition, one story after another about the over reaction of the left to outrageous fears about women's' rights and mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Just as there are bigots and haters on the left, there also are bigots and haters on the right. But every Trump supporter I personally know voted for him because of the unemployed; the underpaid; the forgotten middle class; the over-regulation and intrusion of the federal government on small business, farmers and ranchers; the failure of Obamacare and subsequent unaffordable health care premiums hitting the middle class; controlling immigration; and the corruption of the Clintons. To me, and all I know, it had absolutely nothing to do with racism or women's' rights.
The liberal left has so many platforms to continue this misrepresentation, from the NYT to Colbert to the shameful (non-conversation) dressing down of Mike Pence at the performance of Hamilton. All blasted across your front page as fact....Trump supporters are haters and bigots.
Not true, NYT, not true.
3
In line with many commenters, I was on the brink of canceling my subscription because the Times practiced a constant false equivalency coverage. The endless email/Foundation drumbeat tended to soften Trump's lies, his cruel, vicious, racist and sexist remarks, and his criminal/unethical history. The conclusion? Well, they're both crooks, so pick your poison. I got tired of reading readers' commenting that they would hold their nose and vote for Clinton or that she was an imperfect candidate. I'm 72; I've never seen or heard a perfect candidate in my life.
And Sanders? He lost the primaries. Except to his faithful, he was never really a contender. If he had been a serious threat to the right, the right's hate machine would have savaged him as they did Hillary. They saw him as an ally. His faithful repeated and embellished the right's anti-Hillary talking points. Instead of getting the "perfect candidate", in the end, the Sander's supporters had to hold their noses and vote Hillary, vote Stein, or not vote. The Times gave him plenty of space.
And Sanders? He lost the primaries. Except to his faithful, he was never really a contender. If he had been a serious threat to the right, the right's hate machine would have savaged him as they did Hillary. They saw him as an ally. His faithful repeated and embellished the right's anti-Hillary talking points. Instead of getting the "perfect candidate", in the end, the Sander's supporters had to hold their noses and vote Hillary, vote Stein, or not vote. The Times gave him plenty of space.
5
Throughout, occasionally my comments were censored for no apparent reason other than they presented a negative view of the NYT pushing its unfair campaign narrative no matter what. It's inconceivably that you couldn't see this, except in hind-sight.
1
The misleading of readers results from the NYT's folly of pretending to be "unbiased". Why not simply come forward and represent that it is the voice of the Democrat establishment and move on? The Guardian is fine with its role.
That being said, the inability to accurately portray the driving issues in the country between I-5 and I-95 was clearly a disservice to readers as currently is the opinion page which has no columnist that supports the new administration.
That being said, the inability to accurately portray the driving issues in the country between I-5 and I-95 was clearly a disservice to readers as currently is the opinion page which has no columnist that supports the new administration.
2
Your coverage was actually excellent but could use fine-tuning by understanding some of Jay Rosen's points (at PressThink.Org).
Trump presented himself as a really horrible person with really bad policy "notions." Even the Clinton campaign knew early this election was about "change vs. the status quo" and did everything it could (as you did) to paint Trump accurately and consistently as an unacceptable risk for that change -- using his own words and undeniable childishness and madness.
Liberalism is Science and Enlightenment; don't depart from that. Regrettably, we voted for Climate Death over a woman's right to self agency. We either outgrow tribalism and become citizens of the world and protect it, or we lose it. All of it.
Trump presented himself as a really horrible person with really bad policy "notions." Even the Clinton campaign knew early this election was about "change vs. the status quo" and did everything it could (as you did) to paint Trump accurately and consistently as an unacceptable risk for that change -- using his own words and undeniable childishness and madness.
Liberalism is Science and Enlightenment; don't depart from that. Regrettably, we voted for Climate Death over a woman's right to self agency. We either outgrow tribalism and become citizens of the world and protect it, or we lose it. All of it.
2
What I want to see is continued and comprehensive coverage of the vote count. For example, the NC governor's race is still undecided. There are irregularities in other states' counts. Michigan and Wisconsin show many people did not vote for president but voted the rest of the ballot. Really? In what areas did this occur? Could there be tampering? Ballot totals agree with number of voters, but many presidential votes are missing.
Election officials may not be likely to report irregularities for fear of losing their jobs. We rely on journalism to keep our elected officials in line. It seems that the NYT and all media have been too hasty in moving on before all election results are in, demonstrating the decline in journalistic ethics in media today.
Election officials may not be likely to report irregularities for fear of losing their jobs. We rely on journalism to keep our elected officials in line. It seems that the NYT and all media have been too hasty in moving on before all election results are in, demonstrating the decline in journalistic ethics in media today.
2
To the 50 women from Char lotte: reexamine yourselves. How could anyone with any sense of human dignity have ever pulled the lever for Donald Trump?
3
Still sorting through the many perspectives the Times is providing on the results of the election and it will remain my primary news source. However, I think we all need to expand our reading, views and listening to include other opinions. Over the last year, I have listened to Limbaugh, Hannity and even Savage and gleaned a very different view of the world, albeit a very frightening view and the clear source of most of Trump's positions and slogans.
The long and the short of Times reporting is the quality of the reporters and editors that it hires. With Racing Form in hand, any Harvard graduate can report the results of a horse race—with detailed background. What is no longer visible in NYT pages is background: How the world arrived at this point. Reporters no longer know the back-story on what they report. There is no Racing Form giving odds on world events.
My suggestion to the Editors is to bring back the Week in Review section (or whatever its name was). That section captured the essence of the past week’s world and national affairs. It was “must” reading, written by NYT senior staff. Promotion to that staff should be the incentive for better reporting from the minions. In days gone by, I believe that some of its staff, at retirement, became the backbone of the Berkshire Eagle, in western Mass. I read it faithfully while in high school in Lenox. Page 2, if memory serves, was international news (in a local rag!!).
My basic recommendation to the NYT is promotion of reporters for understanding (#1), not miles traveled (#25) or speed of delivery of text (#2 or #3). Number 3 might be knowledge of grammar and spelling since the proofreading staff has been decimated at all newspapers.
My suggestion to the Editors is to bring back the Week in Review section (or whatever its name was). That section captured the essence of the past week’s world and national affairs. It was “must” reading, written by NYT senior staff. Promotion to that staff should be the incentive for better reporting from the minions. In days gone by, I believe that some of its staff, at retirement, became the backbone of the Berkshire Eagle, in western Mass. I read it faithfully while in high school in Lenox. Page 2, if memory serves, was international news (in a local rag!!).
My basic recommendation to the NYT is promotion of reporters for understanding (#1), not miles traveled (#25) or speed of delivery of text (#2 or #3). Number 3 might be knowledge of grammar and spelling since the proofreading staff has been decimated at all newspapers.
2
An addition: Max Fisher's "How the Iranian-Saudi Proxy Struggle Tore Apart the Middle East" (NYT, 11/19/16) is a perfect example of the type of journalism that belongs in "The Week in Review" section: concise history unknown to many readers. It probably also counts that Mr. Fisher was not hired yesterday.
BTW, the front page of the paper would also be well served if reporters would identify the religious affiliation of combatants in their stories.
BTW, the front page of the paper would also be well served if reporters would identify the religious affiliation of combatants in their stories.
2
As a lifelong reader of The Times, a journalist and a journalism professor, I couldn't disagree more strongly with your comments that appear to chastise the paper for allegedly focusing on the more extreme elements of Donald Trump's agenda. This is a time for a courageous and honest press, not one that splits the difference and creates false equivalencies between candidates, but one that looks at what is happening, takes a transparent position based on what the facts show and reports from that base. In a world overwhelmed by fake news and propaganda built off a skewed kernel of truth, 'objectivity' is downright dangerous if measured as a false balance. I agree that media need to listen more, particularly in large swaths of the country in which local newspapers have been crippled by economic cutbacks. But in truth Donald Trump got more free publicity from the press than any candidate in American history. The Times, thank goodness, wasn't along for the ride.
2
Ms. Spayd, your article seems to focus on the complaints of Trump supporters, with a small mention of liberal readers of the Times. I think you miss the point if you are concerned with either side's partisan push towards news coverage in their own image. What I, and I would imagine many other long term readers of the Times would really like, is a return to a serious journalistic coverage of the issues, with as much neutrality as possible. And a reduction in "horse race" coverage, placed front and center. I have been considering dropping my subscription due to the apparent turn towards sensationalism, which seems more interested in garnering readers for ad space sales than in really reporting "all the news thats fit to print".
4
The super glued to each others opinions of the Times readers is laughable. I am sure none of them knows a single Trump voter nor wants to. Trump won. Trump won. Trump won.
1
I will agree that the NYT has a liberal bias in things like opinions and op-eds. But those sections aren't inherently things that need to be 100% objective. The vast majority of coverage I would say is unbiased. The real problem is with Fox News and alt-right media constantly saying all mainstream media is liberal. If it's heard enough times the people eventually believe it. The tradition of newspapers officially endorsing a presidential candidate doesn't help either. Perhaps the NYT should consider retiring that long tradition.
Let's dissect that claim that there needed to be better coverage of the election. First, Clinton did not receive much attention on her actual positions. Second, the biggest issue is Trump ran on a platform that had no real positions, rather a stream of shocking speeches devoid of any real content - a campaign style not seen since Andrew Jackson. The only thing that could have been further reported on was what people in the rust belt felt, but that's not really objective reporting. The NYT reported way too much on the negative things Trump said. It could have been a weekly article on the shocking things he said rather than reporting everyday for a year or more. It was free media that likely propelled him into the presidency as a figure of change. Have you reported yet on how he won spending so much less campaigning than Hillary?
Let's dissect that claim that there needed to be better coverage of the election. First, Clinton did not receive much attention on her actual positions. Second, the biggest issue is Trump ran on a platform that had no real positions, rather a stream of shocking speeches devoid of any real content - a campaign style not seen since Andrew Jackson. The only thing that could have been further reported on was what people in the rust belt felt, but that's not really objective reporting. The NYT reported way too much on the negative things Trump said. It could have been a weekly article on the shocking things he said rather than reporting everyday for a year or more. It was free media that likely propelled him into the presidency as a figure of change. Have you reported yet on how he won spending so much less campaigning than Hillary?
1
I am surprised that these lady's read the Times. I would check to see if they really subscribe. As to the coverage, it was poor along with the rest of the media. Very few stories or opinions about policy. Tax cuts for the rich, what it means, the cost of the wall and maintenance costs and if it will even work, Muslim ban is it possible and what it means, how many people, how a pro Russian 're set Will make Russian influence stronger put Assad back in power and what that means, etc, etc, etc. You took the lazy way, articles about how Don was bad, a liar, etc,etc,etc. Sensational over substance. Some Don is bad, but the constant every article made the criticism seem biased and thus disregarded.
1
Interestly, "losing thousands of subscribers" and "having the best one-week subscription rate since the digital edition started" are not mutually exclusive events.
3
What a clownish and facile attempt to address an ever-worsening divide in this country. You fail to mention the many complaints you received about access-driven journalism, which essentially resulted in both campaigns spoonfeeding journalists process tid bits in lieu of serious investigative journalism.
But even worse, you are falling for the same old toxic, Bannon-eque reverse-victimization ploy. The North Carolina ladies are the TRUE victims of this election, right? Not the undocumented children whose classmates shouted BUILD A WALL during lunch. Not the women Trump groped and then threatened to sue. Or the disabled he mocked. Or the victims of hate crimes from emboldened white nationalists.
Indeed, Trump/Bannon Americans have been trained by the alt-right media to hone their "in your face" trolling of every media outlet with the singular message that white Americans are the true victims (of reverse-racism).
And you now have brought this message to the front page of the NYT. Congratulations.
But even worse, you are falling for the same old toxic, Bannon-eque reverse-victimization ploy. The North Carolina ladies are the TRUE victims of this election, right? Not the undocumented children whose classmates shouted BUILD A WALL during lunch. Not the women Trump groped and then threatened to sue. Or the disabled he mocked. Or the victims of hate crimes from emboldened white nationalists.
Indeed, Trump/Bannon Americans have been trained by the alt-right media to hone their "in your face" trolling of every media outlet with the singular message that white Americans are the true victims (of reverse-racism).
And you now have brought this message to the front page of the NYT. Congratulations.
2
Where is Margaret Sullivan or Dan Okrent when we need them?
2
The liberals are saying you're too conservative. The conservatives are saying you're too liberal. That probably means you're doing it right.
1
" They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. "
Oh, gimme a break.
If you can overlook and justify supporting a racist misogynist for whatever reasons, you better expect to be tarred with the stuff vomiting up from his id.
Live with it and stop whining...like him.
Oh, gimme a break.
If you can overlook and justify supporting a racist misogynist for whatever reasons, you better expect to be tarred with the stuff vomiting up from his id.
Live with it and stop whining...like him.
3
Political reporting has been terrible at the Times for years -- so trivial, personal and unmeasured that it's unfair even to the Times' own preferred candidate. Look what it did to Al Gore in 2000. You'd never guess that politics wasn't sport, jest or a matter for the society page.
Add together institutional deference to authority, the proven inability of Times political reporters to master the basics of a modern economy (are deficits always bad? are "free trade" agreements really about free trade? are "entitlements" really going to bankrupt the nation?), open scorn for any candidate outside the realm of approved cocktail circuit discourse (which circuit includes far right views, but not actual liberal ones) and the cult of personal reporting -- "added value", in Timespeak -- and you get the disaster of The New York Times.
Then again, "issues" appear to bore Times political reporters. So what else is left?
Add together institutional deference to authority, the proven inability of Times political reporters to master the basics of a modern economy (are deficits always bad? are "free trade" agreements really about free trade? are "entitlements" really going to bankrupt the nation?), open scorn for any candidate outside the realm of approved cocktail circuit discourse (which circuit includes far right views, but not actual liberal ones) and the cult of personal reporting -- "added value", in Timespeak -- and you get the disaster of The New York Times.
Then again, "issues" appear to bore Times political reporters. So what else is left?
2
The Times was a little more than a shill for Hilary Clinton for years and whatever didn't fit into that agenda [wow!! isn't she great? the first woman president?] was given short shrift. The Times can no longer be called the paper of record - I feel completely betrayed and the Times has betrayed its mission - big time. I've been reading the Times for 60 years and cannot recall anything like the failure to objectively report the news which has characterized the Times during the run up to this election.
Worse to come no doubt, with "reporters", talking heads and prognosticators who got it completely wrong justifying why we should still continue to listen to and respect them.
Worse to come no doubt, with "reporters", talking heads and prognosticators who got it completely wrong justifying why we should still continue to listen to and respect them.
5
The Trump transition in disarray article on November 15th was a low point for me in Times coverage. He was the president elect for a week, there wasn't enough time to be in disarray. Who were the sources for this article, the fired campaign staffers? Is the fact that world leaders couldn't pick up the phone to call Trump evidence of disarray? I don't know if the State Department briefing book is essential reading, but the Times presents it as accepted wisdom that it's negligent not to have it in hand if any world leader happens to get you on the phone...
Those Trump voters can say whatever they want. But the fact remains that they voted for a racist, misogynist, xenophobic candidate who has at best an erratic temperament and is unqualified for the job. There was no policy platform to that campaign. Just a call for white people to "make America great again." And now he has chosen a white nationalist as his senior adviser whose office will be steps away from the Oval Office and a segregationist for Attorney General. Please do not aid and abet attempts to normalize this candidate or those who supported him. There is nothing normal about him or about voting for him. Those who did need to own what they have wrought.
1
Cannot quite put my finger on what bothers me about this column. Readers blaming the Times for its coverage of the campaign? Spare me the post election blame games.
In my view voters have made a big mistake, the onus for the next four years belongs squarely on the voters. those who voted for Trump and those who did not vote for Clinton. Let's not make excuses. It is what it is and we have to deal with it. Trump made a lot of promises, let's see him keep them. Let's have the Times thoroughly cover his successes and failures in order that voters may know whether or not they bought a pig in a poke.
In my view voters have made a big mistake, the onus for the next four years belongs squarely on the voters. those who voted for Trump and those who did not vote for Clinton. Let's not make excuses. It is what it is and we have to deal with it. Trump made a lot of promises, let's see him keep them. Let's have the Times thoroughly cover his successes and failures in order that voters may know whether or not they bought a pig in a poke.
1
American's need to get out of their country more often. Your headlines about right now are pretty much exactly what was being covered in Canada and overseas 8 months ago! Even your weather maps on TV show America as if its an island, ignoring the fact your actually connected to a continent and the rest of the world. Wake up!
1
It's ironic that the Times support of Hillary was undermined by its daily drumbeat of her electoral inevitability, through the front page prognostication that her statistical probability of election was never less than 80 per cent and was more often 90 percent or even more. I have no doubt that the Times fostered a dominant narrative that fostered complacency among progressives and even inside her Brooklyn campaign offices.
But the Times' biggest goof was its failure to detect the seismic eruptions in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - or to question the Clinton campaign's abandonment of these states, especially when Sanders carried Michigan and Wisconsin. It's as if the Times so completely dismissed Sanders that it also closed its eyes to what Bernie's victories meant for the larger election. Sturdy and tough reporting from the rust belt might have garnered a Pulitzer. Instead, with the stakes so high, The Times missed the story of the year.
But the Times' biggest goof was its failure to detect the seismic eruptions in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - or to question the Clinton campaign's abandonment of these states, especially when Sanders carried Michigan and Wisconsin. It's as if the Times so completely dismissed Sanders that it also closed its eyes to what Bernie's victories meant for the larger election. Sturdy and tough reporting from the rust belt might have garnered a Pulitzer. Instead, with the stakes so high, The Times missed the story of the year.
2
Oh please. The Times coverage of this bigot was too mild not too intense. Trump ran a white nationalist campaign, just as George Wallace did back in the 1960s. People who voted for Wallace claimed the same sorts of things (e.g. 'segregation is a state's rights issue' not flat out racism). No one today looks back on that vote as something other than what it was - support for a bigot. History will look back at this election the same way - and the Times has an obligation to cover the actual news, like the bigoted administration he is assembling - not fake email scandals, and the like - with proper rigor.
2
Never thought I'd live to see the day but here we are: Faux News reported more accurately the the NYT.
1
The artful non-apology, which is what it was, was precisely the same perception management construct that was presented throughout the campaign, presuming that, in our ignorance (Times thinking), we would be mollified that the once venerated NY Times, had deigned to speak directly to the proles.
And that sickness in thought, which permeates the ranks of the liberal elites, effectively ruined what little chance the Democratic candidate had, after the deliberate and egregious destruction of Bernie Sanders, the only honorable Presidential candidate in 40 plus years.
And as I daily read, and opine in comments, the Times is still engaged in this perception management, still seeding discontent instead of constructive thinking; even Krugman, in his screeds, has begun to acknowledge that the Trump agenda can't help but be an economic boon, and he then uses his myopia to undermine such, by stating it will only be short term.
Whatever happened to our ability, regardless the party in power, to come together and work to insure Trump succeeds.
And that sickness in thought, which permeates the ranks of the liberal elites, effectively ruined what little chance the Democratic candidate had, after the deliberate and egregious destruction of Bernie Sanders, the only honorable Presidential candidate in 40 plus years.
And as I daily read, and opine in comments, the Times is still engaged in this perception management, still seeding discontent instead of constructive thinking; even Krugman, in his screeds, has begun to acknowledge that the Trump agenda can't help but be an economic boon, and he then uses his myopia to undermine such, by stating it will only be short term.
Whatever happened to our ability, regardless the party in power, to come together and work to insure Trump succeeds.
1
I cannot believe Liz Spayd's conclusion is the NY Times needs to better understand Trump voters. Statistics show that about 25% of people who voted for him believe he is unfit to be President. Perhaps this paper needs to give them more information on Clinton emails and express relief that there will be no conflict of interest issues with the Clinton Foundation. Then the paper needs to make sure we gloss over all of Trumps conflict of interests and the huge, $25,000,000 settlement he just had to make because his Trump University was a complete fraud!
2
The comments on this article reflect precisely the problems the public editor highlights. That is, Times readers have acquired a distorted view of American politics through reading the Times. From the standpoint of a slightly left-of-Bernie Dem, I'd like to say I found both the dismissive and skimpy coverage of Sanders's campaign -- which the NYT has acknowledged -- biased and unfortunately influential, and also the coverage of Trump's supporters and his appeal to be caricaturish. It really felt as though the paper of record had a mission to help nominate and elect Clinton -- and to reinforce the terrible idea that this was justified by the repulsiveness of Trump's views. But actual reporting can't be advocacy. That is, it can't be propaganda. I have to tell you that the Times compelled readers interested in learning more about the real morass of mega-donations to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, etc. to seek out other sources. And also, Trump was supported by a substantial swath of -- surprise!-- bright, educated people. Don't you want to know why? Ironically, what angered many of them was precisely the ubiquity of sanitized, controlled narratives. Honestly, the Times has played a role in both elevating a fatally flawed Dem candidate and then witlessly contributing to the conditions for her defeat.
1
Not a Trump supporter, but I do think that the media did a lot of damage this election. The media got obssesed with Trump, he sells and appeals to a lot of people and distracts from what it is really happening. I wish I could see an article where the media acknowledges their stupidity towards this election. If places like Facebook and Google are to blame for fake news, the media is also guilty for giving Trump what he wanted, scandolous news and free promotion.
It keeps happening everyday, everywhere. Four years of Trump sound like an eternity now.
It keeps happening everyday, everywhere. Four years of Trump sound like an eternity now.
This article did absolutely nothing to make me think the editors of the NYT "get it." You may have had your "largest" increase in subscribers in years but this one will be leaving. I prefer the Washington Post.
3
I agree with another comment: This column has to be a joke. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket (of true deplorables), and the columnist regrets not helping that descent go faster?
What threat from Trump brought on this column? It's sickening. The Times apologizing to Trump? Gag me with a spoon.
What threat from Trump brought on this column? It's sickening. The Times apologizing to Trump? Gag me with a spoon.
3
Please do not change your reporting and your opinions to please the minority of newspaper readers who support the new administration. It's not the print media's coverage but the television news which promoted sensationalism to increase ratings. Not one respected newspaper endorsed the elected ticket. The fact checking provided by the print journalists is integral to our democracy and must be continued in the face of criticism and threats.
2
Why did these women vote for Trump? Did they believe the TV, Facebook and Twitter lies? Blaming the newspapers is ridiculous! Can't people think? Hillary had a few point lead until the FBI's second well/timed letter about Hillary's emails. That ended her run. I've heard women say they disliked her because she didn't divorce Bill. They thought her success was due to him not the other way around. The Clinton campaign failed to get out her message. They ran a negative campaign against Trump - not a positive one for Hillary. She did win every debate / but it was not enough. I happen to be able to think for myself / so women for Trump why did you vote for him? Most people don't read newspapers so no excuses. Were you the ones chanting lock her up, sneering at the disabled, taunting the media in their cage? Now we get D Duck Dynasty for the next four years.
2