C’mon New York Times!  You’re letting the news get in the way of the party line propaganda!

Gerren Keith Gaynor of Fox News reports that, “New York Times headline of Trump’s remarks on mass shootings ignites backlash.”

“A New York Times headline about President Trump’s remarks on the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton drew condemnation online– including some Democratic presidential candidates– and was subsequently changed late Monday.”

nyt 11

They changed their headline?

Wow!  That never happens.  That headline must have been pretty vile or grossly inaccurate.

What exactly was the headline?

“The newspaper summarized Trump’s comments, in which he denounced hate and white supremacy, with the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” on the front page of its first edition.”

Huh?

That was the headline they were forced to change?

That headline was completely accurate and unbiased.  That was exactly what occurred.  President Trump urged for unity against racism, denouncing hate and white supremacy groups.

And therein lies the problem.

How can the democrats’ fairy tale narrative of The President being a racist be true if he is reported as being against racism and denouncing hate and white supremacy groups?

C’mon New York Times!

Get with the program!

Did you forget you’re a propaganda rag that works in concert with the democrats?!

nyt 8

It seems that in a moment of weakness you actually reported “the news” there.

Shame on you!

“A photograph of Tuesday’s first edition was tweeted out by journalist Nate Silver Monday night and was quickly slammed by critics who accused The Gray Lady of inaccurately representing Trump’s comments.”

“The Gray Lady?”

More like “Gray Lady Down!”

nyt 9

“Some Twitter users threatened to cancel their subscriptions and urged others to do the same.”

Really?!

Did you know that “some twitter users” can be found to be doing virtually anything?

Anyway…, I digress.

‘“I canceled my subscription,’ tweeted author and CNN contributor Joan Walsh, adding, ‘I can’t keep rewarding such awful news judgement.’”

Let’s get one thing clear…, Joan Walsh is a liar.  She didn’t cancel anything.  And by “awful news judgment” she means diverting from the “fake news,” liberal narrative.  She is associated with CNN after all.

nyt 4

“Prominent Democrats in Washington also took aim at the Times, including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

‘“Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions,’ the freshman congresswoman tweeted.”

What?

Please explain to me how “white supremacy is aided” by reporting that The President is calling for unity against racism and white supremacy groups?

nyt 3

These democrats are sooo confused and sooo disingenuous that it is almost beyond commenting on.

nyt 1

“Presidential candidates, many of whom blamed Trump’s rhetoric for the El Paso, Texas, shooting that left at least 22 dead, also decried the headline.”

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, ‘That’s not what happened.’”

No, Kirsten…, that IS exactly what happened.

‘“Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do,’ wrote Sen. Cory Booker.”

Thank you for your take on the matter “Spartacus!”

I believe we all can “do better…,” including you Cory.

“A photograph of the Times’ second edition of the front page hours later revealed that the headline had been changed to ‘Assailing Hate but Not Guns.’ Its website also showed a similar headline: ‘Trump Condemns Bigotry but Doesn’t Call for Major New Guns Laws.’”

nyt 6

I’m surprised these new headlines were even deemed acceptable.

There is a negative twist to them now, but there is still a bit of positivity there about The President.

“Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy acknowledged in a statement the original headline was problematic.”

“Problematic?”

The headline was “problematic,” but it wasn’t inaccurate, huh?

‘“The original headline was flawed and was changed for all editions of the paper following the first edition,’ the statement read. ‘The headline in question never appeared online, only in the first print edition.’”

The headline was “problematic” and “flawed,” but it wasn’t inaccurate?

Gee…, that reaction to the original headline would seem to be a metaphor for the democrats and their co-conspirators, the mainstream media!

“Problematic” and “flawed.”

nyt 7

nyt 2

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.  She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration.  There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice.  Does it?  Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this?  I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.  And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.”  Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release.  I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑