The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would "reflect" on its coverage of this year's election while rededicating itself to reporting on "America and the world" honestly.You'll have to changes to yourself at the DNA level. You'll need to fire the publisher, the editors, and the lunatic fringe reporters and consultants. Keep the token conservatives and hire a bunch more conservatives to balance the remaining "reasonable" liberals. You have all the typewriters, presses and delivery channels in place, you just need honest journalists in front of the typewriters. Aaaaand you'll have to acquaint everybody with what journalism's solemn role is supposed to be in a democracy, news ethics, etc.. Personally, I don't think anyone there has the political will for much more than token gestures towards this end. Instead, they will build some kind of facade and hope their readers don't figure it out. They probably won't. And they will limp forward to the next Democratic administration, scratching out paychecks, after which they will go back to full-moonbat mode over the course of a couple of years.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper's embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.
"We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers," the letter states.
Known? How long into the past are you peering? How many of your present readers were paying attention to your content then?
New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it (The Times) demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump's supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn't have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Hey, it was an easy paycheck to feed the opinions of a bunch of delusional liberals looking for good feels in a tough world.
Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper's public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
Personally, they probably believed it was higher, they just wanted wiggle room in case things didn't go as planned.
She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.
Ha! Your chosen candidate got outmaneuvered by a moron! Good luck correcting that gracefully.
Spayd wrote, "Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here's one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: "Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think."
So why would Kathleen read or stand by this rag? Does Kathleen really exist?
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of "pushing the limited agenda of your editors."
Ditto.
"Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us."
Ditto.
Sulzberger--who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly-- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to "give the news impartially, without fear or favor."
Said the frog to the scorpions.
"But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias," he said.
We? You mean everyone turned on a dime? What supreme management skills you have there. How do you do it?
