Monday, November 20, 2017

New York Times Readers are Outraged by Its Bias, but Editors Suppress the Criticisms; Staff’s Rabid Lügenpresse Bias is Hastening Its Demise: “There will be a stain on the press for being so openly one-sided in a presidential election, and that will not go away.”


Chief New York Times thread Nazi, Bassey Etim

Excerpted by Nicholas Stix

Opinion: Blatant bias against Trump may hasten the end of mainstream media
By Darrell Dellamaide
Nov 3, 2016 3:11 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Whatever else this year’s bizarre and destructive presidential campaign achieves, it may well sound the death knell for legacy news media.

Newspapers have long since been doomed by the digital revolution and the collapse of their economic model. New waves of buyouts and layoffs recently announced by the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal mark another step by print media toward extinction.

Broadcast networks, too, face severe difficulties as new technologies and changes in viewing habits transform the television industry and bring new challenges to news operations.

But it is the bias of the establishment media so blatantly in favor of the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, that may strip these news organizations of their last claim to value — as an objective and authoritative source of information — and hasten their demise.

When Liz Spayd started her new assignment as the public editor of the New York Times last summer. [sic] she was taken aback by the deluge of email criticizing the newspaper for “one-sided reporting” and “relentless bias against Trump.”

Her inquiries in the newsroom were met “with a roll of the eyes,” Spayd said, and the claim that all sides hate the Times because they are even-handed in their reporting.

“That response may be tempting, but unless the strategy is to become The New Republic gone daily, this perception by many readers strikes me as poison,” Spayd said candidly. “A paper whose journalism appeals to only half the country has a dangerously severed public mission.”

She went on to muse that a fracturing media environment, with people seeking out the news they want to hear, might be pulling the Times to the left, which is where two-thirds of its readers are. This would be bad, she said, because of the stories that would be missed — such as the “surprising” triumph of Donald Trump in capturing the Republican nomination.

“Imagine a country where the greatest, most powerful newsroom in the free world was viewed not as a voice that speaks to all but as one that has taken sides,” she said, before grimly asking, “Or has that already happened?”

Yes, indeed, it has. Behind all the Times’ fawning profiles of Clinton — and the denigrating pieces not only on Trump but also Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders — was a cozy understanding between Times reporters and the Clinton campaign, WikiLeaks has shown us, that getting Clinton elected is something of a collaborative effort….

Gil Stonebarger
November 16, 2017 at 4:03 P.M.

wow, just wow……and as a white male…I’M the problem…..

This is an excerpt from a report I wrote for Peter Brimelow, at VDARE, on February 3, 2014.

Here’s what the New York Times’ chief thread censor, Nigerian-American Community Manager Bassey Etim,  [pictured right]   [Email | Twitter] who supervises 13 (!) enforcers to fabricate the fake consensus you see on NYT comments threads, thinks of normal, patriotic, white Americans—the kind who fight and die in our wars, pay the taxes, do the productive, legal work (and research for me!):

Most of the newspaper comment sections I see are filled with racism, homophobia and barely literate anti-feminist rants…. The Internet is a big place, and there are a lot of spaces where you can say whatever you please, but is not the rest of the Internet. It’s a news Web site where the news is discussed in ways that don’t make you feel like you need to shower afterward.

[Comments on Comments by Samantha Henig, New York Times, September 20, 2013.]

Paradoxically, Etim then agreed with a reader—“the comments are where the real America is”—and added:

I spend a lot of my evenings in the world of comments too, and not just the night terrors. But I agree with that quote. The people who have access to media platforms are overwhelmingly likely to come from a [sic] certain cultural cliques, populate similar tax brackets and have had a deep involvement with the media for most of their lives. But in comments sections, I see a range of concerns and fears and a thirst for knowledge that most Americans don’t see being reflected in their local media.

I contacted Etim five times for this article, but he never responded.

[Read the whole thing here.]


Anonymous said...

MSM was generally agreed upon as being passe for a long time now. The path to obliteration will be hastened by their one-sided and malicious assassination of Trump.

Anonymous said...

NBC,CBS,ABC:Go after both political parties--be fair,but relentless in your pursuit of corruption--repeat--both parties.
CNN,MSNBC,FOX:You are cable news niches.We know what we're getting by choosing that channel.You're not bound to be objective,but if you were,the choice to be fair,would make you
more trustworthy--which equals more viewers.
Late night TV/news commentary:I count the seconds from the time the host walks onstage until the first Trump joke.Over/under is 5 seconds.The over/under on the length of the Trump monologues are 8 minutes.As boring as TV can get.
--GR Anonymous

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
I've said it before but will say it again: While comments do increase traffic, they also embarrass the media when readers reveal their hypocrisy and lies and demonstrate that they are not as brainwashed as their lords and masters thought them to be. Since the primary purpose of the media is not really inform but to keep the public indoctrinated then the powers that be have no problem with sharply censoring or outright eliminating reader comments. It is all done with euphemistic rationalizations [You walk always feeling like you need a shower after reading them]but the true reasons are political and ideological.