The New York Times Finally Admits It’s Just A Democrat Super PAC

Loading

David Harsanyi:

Journalists will often complain that readers don’t properly understand the distinction between editorialists and reporters. To be fair, it’s often quite difficult to tell. That’s not only because of bias in coverage or because the Internet has largely wiped away the compartmentalization of the traditional paper, but because reporters now regularly give their opinions on TV, write “analysis” pieces, and make their ideological preferences clear on social media. Many news outlets — The Daily Beast, BuzzFeed, etc. — openly report from a left-wing perspective.

I’m not sure if this kind of transparency is necessarily a bad thing, but whatever the case, an editorial board is still run separately from the newspaper. It offers arguments regarding public policy and culture. Ideally, it publishes op-ed columns by an array of voices with varying points of view, occasionally even challenging its readers. When I was a member of an editorial board, our mission, at least as I saw it, was to offer rigorous, good-faith arguments for whatever point of view we were taking. I never once consulted anyone in the newsroom.



In his botched sting on The Washington Post this week, James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is to either confuse the editorial board with the newsroom or to manipulate readers to confuse them. At some point, however, it also becomes the paper’s fault, as well. What happens when an editorial board goes beyond arguing for liberal positions and debating policy to actively politicking for one party? There’s a big difference between political discourse and activism.

Today, The New York Times editorial board took over the paper’s opinion Twitter account, which has around 650,000 followers, “to urge the Senate to reject a tax bill that hurts the middle class & the nation’s fiscal health.” By urging the Senate, it meant sending out the phone number of moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins and imploring followers to call her. So, in others words, the board was indistinguishable from any of the well-funded partisan groups it whines about in editorials all the time.

Perhaps I’m forgetting instances of similar politicking, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major newspaper engage in the kind of partisan activism The New York Times is involved in right now—not even on an editorial page. The Times’ editorial board isn’t saying, “Boy, that Republican bill is going to kill children,” it’s imploring people on social media — most of whom don’t even subscribe to their paper or live in Maine — to inundate a senator with calls to sink a tax reform they dislike. (It worth pointing out that its hyperbolic contentions regarding the bill are generally untrue or misleading, but that’s another story.)

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The New York Pravda admit its 99% B.S. and 1% truth just like with all liberal rags Lies Lies Lies

Perhaps the Journal News cannot be classified as a “major paper”, but they took the step to publish the addresses of CHL holders in the name of “reasonable gun control”. The NYT wanted to, as well. They didn’t really care if people got hurt, either.

Even after the problems caused by the Journal News, NYT wants to publish gun owner names and addresses
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/court-nytimess-request-new-york-city-gun-owners-violates-law_700264.html

Another Journal News inspired break in
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/journal-news-gun-map-leads-to-more-stolen-guns/

Journal News list leads to burglary
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-owners-home-outed-by-newspaper-is-burglarized.html

Anyone that thinks the media is not a full-fledged propaganda arm of the failing Democrat party probably thinks Hillary won the Presidency.

Dead Media only sourced by the dying. Or as an example of a joke.