So here are two blogs that cover this story about the people who write the stories. Both are excellent in there own ways:
NYT Editor: After Failure of Our Russia Mania Plan A to Get Trump, We've Launched Our Racism Mania Plan B
I really liked this excerpt:
Shifting some of the excerpts in different order:
… Staffer: Hi. Thank you so much for doing this. I guess I have a two-part question. The first part is: Would it be fair to say that, if [contributing op-ed writer] Roxane Gay hadn’t tweeted out what she tweeted out, that we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now? And if that is true—or, regardless of whether it’s true—I think that something that some people have been wondering is: Do you feel that there is a person in a high position of power who can be as explicitly self-critical of this organization as Roxane Gay has, and is in a position to be, because she’s on the outside? Do you think that we would benefit from that?
This is about the spat in which NYT columnist Roxane Gay (who enjoys Intersectional Pokemon Points for being black, a woman, and obese) called the NYT’s deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman “unqualified” and he demanded an “enormous apology” from her. He wound up demoted, which probably tells you something about who is higher up on the diversity totem pole.
I really luv that: "I'm 'unqualified'? OK, just for that, you give me an Enormous Apology! Demoted? Huuuuhhhhh?"
And there's lots more good stuff.
A Newspaper, Or The Oberlin Faculty Senate?
It's long, but here are excerpts:
If you keep your eye on media news, you know that The New York Times, the most important newspaper in America, has been roiled internally over whether or not a headline it published over a Trump story (about his post El Paso speech) exonerated the president from racism. The original headline read “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” After a staff revolt, the headline was later changed to “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns”.
The paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, met with the staff about the headline, and the paper’s coverage of race. Slate published the transcript of a leaked recording. I encourage you to read it to get an idea of how the people who put out the most influential newspaper in the world think about this stuff. They go on and on and on, torturing Baquet over this one measly headline that accurately and neutrally described Trump’s speech.
I bet he actually believes that his team is “independent,” and actually wants to “understand the segment of America that probably does not read” the Times. To be fair, I know a handful of people who work at the paper, and I trust their journalistic integrity. But overall, I don’t trust the Times (though I’m a subscriber) to tell this story anywhere remotely close to straight and honest. Read the transcript of that meeting, and tell me that The New York Times is prepared to understand this country outside blue precincts!
Byron York weighs in:
Did it sometimes seem like the New York Times' entire focus was Trump-Russia? Like it built its newsroom around one story? Now, top editor says it did just that. But after Mueller report, paper has had to retool. New focus? Trump racism.
￼5:26 AM - 16 Aug 2019
The leaders of Google and of The New York Times are stupid to think they can keep their partisan actions secret.ReplyDelete
It's ironic, because these leaders have become so successful in the discovery and dissemination of information.
Somehow they imagine that they themselves are not vulnerable from their own antics being discovered and revealed.
I blame this Democrat frenzy of hate on, not Trump, but the self-loathing of Democrats and the decency of Nikki Haley.ReplyDelete
Remember, she, as Governor of S.C in 2015 called for the removal of the Democrat/Confederate flag on the capital grounds. What would you, as a self-loathing S.C. Democrat, have thought about that? The cognitive dissonance would have been soul-shattering. A “racist” Republican is removing the symbol of the Democrat Plantation Empire from the capitol?!
Ever since that event, Democrats everywhere have gone berserk, unable to convince anybody they’re not what they so obviously are – Plantation-loving America-haters.
I was sports editor of my high school newspaper (admittedly a long time ago), but these Timespeople are unworthy of even that--this is middle school level jealousy, envy, frustration, petulance.ReplyDelete
This bit was revealing from Dean Baquet…
“They sometimes want us to pretend that he [Trump] was not elected president, but he [Trump] was elected president. And our job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account. If you’re independent, that’s what you do.”
How does one entertain the idea that Trump was not elected president? And then to state that he was, as if the underlying reality (fact) needed to be reframed for comprehension. This monologue is reflective of people operating in unreality—wishful thinking and fantasy land.
It’s 2019, and the executive editor thinks it’s their job to figure out how and why Trump was elected in 2016. You’d be mistaken, apparently, if you thought that the considerable resources the NYT expended on 2016 election coverage were sufficient to have answered “why” and “how.”
I'm not usually a proponent of the five stages of grief analogy, but the DNC-MSM is still at denial and anger...
"[Trump] was elected president. Andour job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account."Delete
Interesting, that. "Trump was elected president. Our job is to hold Trump accountable"--for being elected? Is that a crime, if you defeat a Dem?
Worse than a crime, I'd say. A disruption of heaven and earth that can't be allowed to stand...Delete
That's about the size of it.Delete