New York Times Admits Anti-Trump Bias

By Andrew Bolt ~

Australian Background:

I have mentioned earlier in a number of Posts how this Presidential election was followed like no other campaign has ever been covered here in Australia. In much the same manner as it was in the U.S. all the media reporting was in favour of Hillary Clinton, and virtually all Donald Trump coverage was negative. Three of the Four major TV Networks covered the results live, and for the whole day, from 9AM until after 6PM, around the time Donald Trump came out for his victory speech, and all of this happened during the day of Wednesday, in real time, taking the time difference into account between the U.S. and Australia. Since that time, when the result became obvious, even to right now, again, the coverage is similar to what it is in the U.S. How could they have got it so wrong. The media, the pundits, and the people as well. It’s also virtually all doom and gloom from the media here as well, almost as if this is the end of the World. Every day on every news bulletin, the first ten minutes are taken up with what is happening in the U.S. as a result of the election result in favour of President Elect Donald Trump. Even now, he is being blamed for everything. Andrew Bolt continues below with his latest Post…..TonyfromOz.

The New York Times admits it was so biased against Donald Trump that it never understood his appeal, but in the same breath still claims it was not biased a all.

Publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Dean Bacquet confess, even while denying their sin:

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? …

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.

Michael Goodwin decodes the cant:

While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”

Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.

Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.

Being biased was not just an unconscious sin but a deliberate policy of the New York Times:

As media columnist Jim Rutenberg put it in August, most Times reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate” and thus couldn’t be even-handed.

That wasn’t one reporter talking — it was policy….

The man responsible for that rash decision, top editor Dean Baquet, later said the Rutenberg piece “nailed” his thinking, and went on to insist that Trump “challenged our language” and that, “He will have changed journalism.”

Baquet also said of the struggle for fairness, “I think that Trump has ended that struggle,” adding: “we now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.”

Baquet was wrong. Trump indeed was challenging, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence.

After that, the floodgates opened, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools were used to pick a president, the facts be damned.

Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.

When an entire media outlet shows such bias – and denounces rather than explain – it misleads its audience. It keeps them ignorant rather than informed.

This is true not just of the New York Times but of our ABC as well as the Fairfax media, and not just on the subject of Trump. On global warming they have also shown unrelieved bias.

No wonder faith in the media is so dangerously low. No wonder Trump could actually campaign against the media and still win.

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.