"You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team."

That's a quote that in normal circumstances should go without saying. So I am reading into it based on the purpose I think it is meant to serve.

They did not IMO just report "truth" about Trump. Back in the primaries (I think it was that far back) they went front page Sunday edition with this big piece about Trump's relationships with women. Way before the Access Hollywood revelation, it basically said that he is something of a neanderthal with the ladies. Crude, off color language, chauvinistic. It wasn't really even newsworthy, and on top of that the chief interviewee for the piece immediately stepped forward and said her comments were taken out of context.

The next great example was in the week right after Comey's bomb dropped. Apparently desperate to try to change the subject, they did a front page story on speculation that he didn't pay federal taxes. I mean, it wasn't even news, as we'd been hearing that for some time, and by the way, the only people who seemed put off by it were those who were certainly not voting for him. Some on the fence seemed to actually buy the "that makes me smart" comment. It actually smacked of the kind of desperation you might see in a sinking campaign.

I read it daily, and was not biased against the Times or for Trump, but IMO and that of many others, not by any means mostly Trumpies, the Times went way beyond just "truth telling". And they understood the risks, which is why they sent around that highly unusual letter. Just for predicting an election wrong?

It was more than that.




[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 11/16/2016 2:15PM]