The New York Times: Worse Than You Thought

[Valin]

Power Line:

John Hinderaker

October 12, 2016

 

The Nieman Journalism Lab scores an interview with Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times. If you think the Times has gotten even worse in the last year or two, Baquet is the man to blame.

 

Nieman records, enthusiastically, that the Times has veered even more sharply to the left during the present election season:

 

Consider that the Times employed 18 of its journalists as realtime fact-checkers during the first presidential debate. Consider Baquet’s own public clarity about calling out Trump lies. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Times featured on its homepage a review of a new Hitler biography by book critic Michiko Kakutani, whose Trumpian analogy may have remained inexplicit, but nonetheless spoke loud volumes about a newfound Times confidence in squarely taking on the issues and fears that consume its readers’ minds.

(Snip)

 

The claim that the Bush administration lied about Iraq’s WMDs has been debunked so often that there is no need to repeat the facts here. Moreover, as Paul pointed out years ago, the assertion is not just false but stupid. It would make no sense for President Bush, or anyone else, to falsely claim that Saddam had WMDs, knowing that the subsequent invasion would prove his assertion untrue. It is extraordinary that Dean Baquet does not grasp such elementary points.

 

(Snip)

 

There are some people who still believe that old-fashioned left-wing institutions like the New York Times are, despite everything, repositories of institutional knowledge that are worthy of respect. This is wrong. The Times is a partisan rag with zero journalistic integrity, a shill for the Democratic Party. Nothing more. And its current executive editor knows less about the news than you do.

[SrWoodchuck]

:

John Hinderaker

October 12, 2016

 

The Nieman Journalism Lab scores an interview with Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times. If you think the Times has gotten even worse in the last year or two, Baquet is the man to blame.

 

Nieman records, enthusiastically, that the Times has veered even more sharply to the left during the present election season:

 

Consider that the Times employed 18 of its journalists as realtime fact-checkers during the first presidential debate. Consider Baquet’s own public clarity about calling out Trump lies. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Times featured on its homepage a review of a new Hitler biography by book critic Michiko Kakutani, whose Trumpian analogy may have remained inexplicit, but nonetheless spoke loud volumes about a newfound Times confidence in squarely taking on the issues and fears that consume its readers’ minds.

(Snip)

 

The claim that the Bush administration lied about Iraq’s WMDs has been debunked so often that there is no need to repeat the facts here. Moreover, as Paul pointed out years ago, the assertion is not just false but stupid. It would make no sense for President Bush, or anyone else, to falsely claim that Saddam had WMDs, knowing that the subsequent invasion would prove his assertion untrue. It is extraordinary that Dean Baquet does not grasp such elementary points.

 

(Snip)

 

There are some people who still believe that old-fashioned left-wing institutions like the New York Times are, despite everything, repositories of institutional knowledge that are worthy of respect. This is wrong. The Times is a partisan rag with zero journalistic integrity, a shill for the Democratic Party. Nothing more. And its current executive editor knows less about the news than you do.

 

 

I noticed they gave Illary veto power over any article written about her. Maybe angling for the Ministry of Propaganda that she will create by XO, when she's pResident?