The NY Times publisher still doesn’t get it.
AG Sulzberger responds to some tweets from President Trump:
My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.
I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.
I told him that although the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists “the enemy of the people.” I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.
I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president’s rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.
Throughout the conversation I emphasized that if President Trump, like previous presidents, was upset with coverage of his administration he was of course free to tell the world. I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair. Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.
Sulzberger makes no apology for the widely known bias of his reporters. He doesn’t address the supported claims his organization is intent on removing Trump as the duly elected president.
What Sulzberger wants is the president to stop using language that he says places reporters in danger and inspires foreign dictators to crack down on journalists. Where was Sulzberger when CNN outed a private individual who created the WWE wrestling GIF? Oh, right, his organization was cheerleading the effort.
How does Sulzberger respond when false articles of national interest are published only to see half-hearted corrections buried deep in the website or print edition? Doesn’t responsible journalism require that reporters admit mistakes and ensure the public is well informed?
It is a fundamental check on the power of the government for the press to report on the abuses of government and its officials. It’s another to say that women who claim they slept with the president before he had any political ambitions should force him to resign. Remember, the Access Hollywood tape would have forced your typical elite politico to resign. Sorry Al. In Trump’s case, voters in the blue wall states knew of the tape and yet still pulled the lever next to his name.
It’s not the president he needs to be concerned with when it comes to journalism. Young people have a growing distrust the media and are turning to other alternatives.
“You don’t want to read things in a newspaper, because that’s filtered. That’s not interactive,” Alma said. “Flop accounts, you can comment, ask questions, and you usually get replies.” Alma said that a big reason she found news outlets to be so unreliable is that she believes each article is written through the lens of a single reporter’s opinion or agenda.
“A lot of news nowadays claims to be facts, but it’s based off people’s opinions or they purposefully omit information,” she said.“I wish we could trust articles more, but it’s been proven multiple times of people reporting things that aren’t true. It’s just hard to know who to trust, so you always feel the need to check things yourself. You can’t just read an article and take it as fact, because there’s always a chance that it isn’t.”
From my perspective, news reporting has become so tainted by opinionated journalists it’s hard to glean what is true and what isn’t. Often times I end up having to read multiple sources or look at unedited video of reported events to get the facts. A recent example is of President Trump calling MS-13 gang members “animals” which was edited and reported as Trump calling immigrants as “animals”. Reporters then rush to the politico’s to get responses to the edited facts in an effort to publish the condemnations. Remember, Trump was discussing violence from these illegal immigrant gang members, but the media wanted you to believe he wasn’t.
When the truth does come out that, how does the NY Times and other outlets respond? Switching topics, clarifying reporting, and doing fact checks of the those who push back using logical leaps that would impress famed motorcycle daredevil, Evil Keneval .
There are no full page ads saying, “We got it wrong and we apologize.” Reporters don’t lose their jobs. Instead, they are given awards for “quality reporting”, like the Russian collusion investigation where the collusion is lacking. Sure, the Russians may have tried to influence the election, but the total number of “Russian influenced votes” remain elusive.
The truth is reporters for the NY Times and other “mainstream” outlets have been on the record claiming they oppose Trump, often retreating to the now useless standard of “making the government transparent.” There is no transparency when it comes to their bias towards Trump. They spend a lot of time looking for anything that puts the President in a bad light while suppressing immediate positive news. It’s intentional and meant to get Trump out of office.
And while Sulzberger believes that Trump may be embolding foreign dictators, Sulzberger’s failure to live up to the standards of journalistic integrity is also a threat. The media, in its desire to sway public opinion to their own views, is just as detrimental. And since the media is un-elected and wants to alter the will of the voters, doesn’t that make them the enemy of the people?