November 15, 2016

HOW THE VEGAN SAUSAGE GETS MADE: “Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching,” former Timesman Michael Cieply writes at that vast rightwing conspiracy scandal-mongering hate rag, Deadline Hollywood:

Having left the Times on July 25, after almost 12 years as an editor and correspondent, I missed the main heat of the presidential campaign; so I can’t add a word to those self-assessments of the recent political coverage. But these recent mornings-after leave me with some hard-earned thoughts about the Times’ drift from its moorings in the nation at-large.

For starters, it’s important to accept that the New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

As John Crudele writes at the New York Post,The New York Times can’t improve until it admits bias”; eliminating that obsession with The Narrative might be a good place for the Times to start, if they wish to put a Band-Aid on all the hemorrhaging:

The New York Times is so, so very sorry that its presidential election coverage was so, so very wrong.

Please have pity on them, Times publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. begged his paper’s readers the other day. “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…,” Sulzberger said in a letter.

Tell me, how is the paper going to “rededicate” itself to “honesty” if it can’t even admit that it was dishonest during this past election? The Times’ coverage was blatantly slanted against Republican Donald Trump, so much so, in fact, that even its own Public Editor — who is supposed to be the referee of ethics — slammed her employer.

“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,” Sulzberger added in the letter.

If the boss truly believes that, he might as well shut the paper down right now because he’s going to lose subscribers faster than Hillary Clinton lost her “expected” electoral votes.

I dunno — if there’s one thing we’ve seen over the past week, the vast majority of leftists want to stay permanently bundled-up in the safe space woobie that is the Liberal Cocoon. And nobody, not even the Washington Post, cocoons its readers like the Gray Lady.

QED: Actual headline at the Times: “A Newly Vibrant Washington Fears That Trump Will Drain Its Culture.” As Heather Wilhelm writes at NRO, “One could write a doctoral thesis regarding the multiple-layered ironies within this headline, or merely stare at it and marvel for days.”

Sadly, it will receive no such analysis from the editorial offices of the Times itself, aka, the school cafeteria from Saved By the Bell.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.