Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’

[Grokmaster]

Talk about belaboring the obvious...ALL NEWS SOURCES, ( except some at Foxnews) are....CLEARLY , IRRATIONALLY BIASED in their reporting.

It PAYS to cater to its rabid, anti-Trump base...regardless of the actual facts of any story, apparently:


Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’


The first female executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, is bashing the paper’s “unmistakably anti-Trump” coverage in an upcoming book.

Abramson, who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says that the storied newspaper has a business incentive to bash Trump regularly in its hard-news coverage because that is what the paper’s liberal readers and subscribers desire.

Writing in her soon-to-be published book,“Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson rips the Times for catering to the anti-Trump bias of its readers.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson writes.



https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/02/former-nyt-editor-rips-paper-anti-trump/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Grand Mal]

Talk about belaboring the obvious...ALL NEWS SOURCES, ( except some at Foxnews) are....CLEARLY , IRRATIONALLY BIASED in their reporting.

It PAYS to cater to its rabid, anti-Trump base...regardless of the actual facts of any story, apparently:


Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’


The first female executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, is bashing the paper’s “unmistakably anti-Trump” coverage in an upcoming book.

Abramson, who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says that the storied newspaper has a business incentive to bash Trump regularly in its hard-news coverage because that is what the paper’s liberal readers and subscribers desire.

Writing in her soon-to-be published book,“Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson rips the Times for catering to the anti-Trump bias of its readers.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson writes.



https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/02/former-nyt-editor-rips-paper-anti-trump/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



View attachment 67247160

The Daily Caller, citing bias in the media. Jesus, did you really bring us a report about bias in the media in the Daily Caller?

 

[Common Sense 1]

Former NY Times editor rips Trump coverage as biased

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased

A former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper’s news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.

In a soon-to-be published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

 

[Rexedgar]

Grok, do you not look to see if there is a prior post that was torpedoed right off before you post this nonsense?

Like fishing with a grenade in this manner:

 

[Bullseye]

The Daily Caller, citing bias in the media. Jesus, did you really bring us a report about bias in the media in the Daily Caller?

The same story has been reported in several other sources - go find one you like.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Talk about belaboring the obvious...ALL NEWS SOURCES, ( except some at Foxnews) are....CLEARLY , IRRATIONALLY BIASED in their reporting.

It PAYS to cater to its rabid, anti-Trump base...regardless of the actual facts of any story, apparently:


Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’


The first female executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, is bashing the paper’s “unmistakably anti-Trump” coverage in an upcoming book.

Abramson, who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says that the storied newspaper has a business incentive to bash Trump regularly in its hard-news coverage because that is what the paper’s liberal readers and subscribers desire.

Writing in her soon-to-be published book,“Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson rips the Times for catering to the anti-Trump bias of its readers.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson writes.



https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/02/former-nyt-editor-rips-paper-anti-trump/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



View attachment 67247160

Of course she is right, she is stating the obvious, but given that she failed at her short stint at editor during a period when this formerly great newspaper was already deep into decline she will be ignored.

 

[KevinKohler]

Grok, do you not look to see if there is a prior post that was torpedoed right off before you post this nonsense?

Like fishing with a grenade in this manner:

That actually didn't go as bad for them as I thought it would, lol.

 

[Rexedgar]

That actually didn't go as bad for them as I thought it would, lol.

Vodka will improve one’s sense of humor; a friend told me!

 

[JMR]

Former NY Times editor rips Trump coverage as biased

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased

A former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper’s news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.

In a soon-to-be published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

Wow, is that what she said in an interview hawking her new book Merchants of Truth? :roll:

And she was fired by the NYT...because of both lying to the publisher and:

“During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues,” Sulzberger said. “I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom.”

And in her new book she cites Steve Bannon in her slam of her previous employer who fired her for incompetence?

Somehow I think if it were one of their own making disparaging comments about Fox News, Fox News would be pointing out the flaws of the messenger. Don't you agree?

 

[Acadia]

Of course she is right, she is stating the obvious, but given that she failed at her short stint at editor during a period when this formerly great newspaper was already deep into decline she will be ignored.

If she's ignored it's because she dared walk off the plantation.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If she's ignored it's because she dared walk off the plantation.

I find your use of "if" exceptionally optimistic.

I have a hard time doing that at this point.

 

[JMR]

If she's ignored it's because she dared walk off the plantation.

She got kicked off the plantation for incompetency, and is now seeking entry to the competing plantation. Doing a good job at it also, it appears. Maybe Bill Shine will take a liking.:roll:

 

[Acadia]

Feeding 24/7 Trump hate into the gaping maws has become the raison d'etre for many of these once-respectable institutions. The fact that it boosts their numbers only serves to reinforce the behavior.

 

[Rexedgar]

She got kicked off the plantation for incompetency, and is now seeking entry to the competing plantation. Doing a good job at it also, it appears. Maybe Bill Shine will take a liking.:roll:

Oh, you were so close...................”Maybe Bill Shine will take a shine.”

 

[Acadia]

She got kicked off the plantation for incompetency, and is now seeking entry to the competing plantation. Doing a good job at it also, it appears. Maybe Bill Shine will take a liking.:roll:

Love it when the Left lets their inner misogynist come out to play.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson writes.

I'm so sick of hearing people claim that media is writing negative stories about Trump. Trump creates negative news stories on his own. The media is unable to keep up with all the scandals Trump generates.

For any other president, just a few of these stories would engulf the presidency for months. But Trump creates another negative story before the previous one has even had time to end.

But people like the OP just blame the media. Did the media force Trump to lie about the 10% raise for the military? Did the media write General Mattis' blistering resignation letter? Did the media write Tillerson's criticism of Trump? Did the media write the OP-ed from someone within the administration?

 

[JMR]

Oh, you were so close...................”Maybe Bill Shine will take a shine.”

LOL, Thanks for the help.

 

[JMR]

Love it when the Left lets their inner misogynist come out to play.

Do you? Or is that a fall back position when no other answer springs to mind?

 

[Hawkeye10]

She got kicked off the plantation for incompetency, and is now seeking entry to the competing plantation. Doing a good job at it also, it appears. Maybe Bill Shine will take a liking.:roll:

Not exactly:

“She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. [Update: On Thursday, Sulzberger gave his staff a memo on what he said was “misinformation” on the pay question. “It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,” he wrote. “Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors.”] Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. [Update: The man in question, John Geddes, was in fact the managing editor of news operations.] “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

Sulzberger’s frustration with Abramson was growing. She had already clashed with the company’s C.E.O., Mark Thompson, over native advertising and the perceived intrusion of the business side into the newsroom.

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-jill-abramson-was-fired

 

[Mycroft]

Talk about belaboring the obvious...ALL NEWS SOURCES, ( except some at Foxnews) are....CLEARLY , IRRATIONALLY BIASED in their reporting.

It PAYS to cater to its rabid, anti-Trump base...regardless of the actual facts of any story, apparently:


Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’


The first female executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, is bashing the paper’s “unmistakably anti-Trump” coverage in an upcoming book.

Abramson, who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says that the storied newspaper has a business incentive to bash Trump regularly in its hard-news coverage because that is what the paper’s liberal readers and subscribers desire.

Writing in her soon-to-be published book,“Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts,” Abramson rips the Times for catering to the anti-Trump bias of its readers.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson writes.



https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/02/former-nyt-editor-rips-paper-anti-trump/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



View attachment 67247160

There are two kinds of people in the world: People who already know. People who don't care.

Both kinds of people will tell her she's wasting her breath.

 

[Xelor]

Former NYT Editor Says Paper Has Become ‘Unmistakably Anti-Trump’

"Has become?" "Sherlock Holmes" would be decidedly underwhelmed by the powers of his deduction.

• NY Times Editorials (not op-eds)
  • Hillary Clinton for President

 

[Acadia]

Do you? Or is that a fall back position when no other answer springs to mind?

Yes, I do indeed. The Left loves women...who agree with them. Step out of line and the fangs come out:shock:

 

[JMR]

Not exactly:


https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-jill-abramson-was-fired

You were quite selective in your choice of quote. Your article itself states that there was no pay discrepancy. The article goes on to outlining how she lied to the publisher about her hiring choices. Sulzberger was quite public about this firing. Regardless, she was a fired employee with an axe to grind long before Trump was elected. It is not at all surprising that she is less than complimentary about her previous employer. My point was that Fox News never pointed that out in their report.

 

[JMR]

Yes, I do indeed. The Left loves women...who agree with them. Step out of line and the fangs come out:shock:

Actually no fangs came out at all, just simple facts about her previous relationship with the NYTs which she now criticizes. Is this now misogyny? Would you like to remain unaware of that history, because Fox News saw no reason to publish it?

 

[Hawkeye10]

You were quite selective in your choice of quote. Your article itself states that there was no pay discrepancy. The article goes on to outlining how she lied to the publisher about her hiring choices. Sulzberger was quite public about this firing. Regardless, she was a fired employee with an axe to grind long before Trump was elected. It is not at all surprising that she is less than complimentary about her previous employer. My point was that Fox News never pointed that out in their report.

Quotes are always selective and I actually thought what I picked demonstrates well both the axe and her personality.....all of which adds up to there being zero chance that the so-called journalists will take her seriously and conduct long overdue reforms.

But she is correct on the points that we have heard so far, she has correctly appraised the situation.