As reported by Matt Vespa
Now I will be the first to admit the use of hyperbole here in the NY Post column. The Times does report the weather, sports and other areas with a fair amount of accuracy. But the gist of this column is an interesting note and begs the question of why? Why would what almost is not questioned; why would America's best paper, accept the endless false reporting they have done, losing readership, and advertisers, and staff, and not stop it. And I do believe that the false reporting can be stopped, immediately.
Someone mentioned this on social media. In fact, many have when it comes to The New York Times and others peddling caught peddling fake news. I mean it’s become abysmal since the 2016 election. Granted, a blind squirrel finds a nut. The publication can dole out some solid pieces—not doubt. The Upshot is a decent section, but the batting average isn’t good. And yes, it’s a liberal paper. I’m sure you all know this but there are some folks out there who think the NYT, MSNBC, and CNN are impartial sources of news. You almost have the chuckle a bit. Yet, when you get egg on your face for the 10,000thtime, maybe there needs to be an internal review. That’s what The New York Post’sMichael Goodwin suggested due to the paper’s serial failures while adding that Trump is Teflon. He will not be taken down by the snowflake brigade that infests so many newsrooms. He also added that if Democrats thought their liberal media allies will be able to drum up support for impeachment, they were sadly mistaken (via NY Post):
Backed by a press corps eager to get Trump, Pelosi felt confident to authorize the flimsy effort to remove the president from office. She assumed media bullhorns would push the public into her camp and that would win her Republican votes for a bipartisan takedown.
She certainly got the media support, but the public and the GOP aren’t following. Indeed, the harder that Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler push and the louder the anti-Trump media scream, the more the public resists impeachment over the Ukraine piffle.
That was true even before last week’s sensational revelations that the FBI was both corrupt and incompetent in the Russia collusion probe. The report and testimony by Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Justice Department, further undermined impeachment by revealing the rampant misconduct in the earlier case.
[…]
Thankfully, the accountability fallout from the Russia misconduct has started, with Attorney General Bill Barr suggesting possible prosecutions of FBI agents and perhaps others.
But what of the media? After all, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the broadcast networks were spectacularly wrong in their coverage.
[…]
Pulitzers and other journalism prizes lionized some reports that are now as discredited as the Steele dossier. Yet the news organizations still protect the secret sources who misled them and act as if they themselves did nothing wrong.
One glaring example. The Times reported last May that the FBI sent a female investigator “posing as research assistant” to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. The woman, who called herself Azra Turk, met with George Papadopoulos in a London bar.
[…]
The Times’ story also says Turk and another informant, Stefan Halper, “failed to glean any information of value” from several meetings with Papadopoulos, but that is not true, according to the inspector general. He says one of the FBI’s most significant “inaccuracies and omissions” was the failure to tell FISA judges that Papadopoulos repeatedly denied to Halper and Turk that the campaign was collaborating with Russia or WikiLeaks. This is the equivalent of Brady material. The Woods process of examining the accuracy of all the material in each FISA warrant renewals. These were not done as IG Horowitz's report revealed. I am still not certain that the New York Times has admitted this.
Did the Times reporters know about that exculpatory information, or did their FBI sources lie to them? Either way, the paper now knows its May story was wrong on key points, yet it remains uncorrected. Again, why? Is there really more money to be gained from printing lie after lie when eventually the truth is found out? I just can not see a logical reason for this. If there are an endless supply of advertisers to replace any you might lose along the way, then why are you making cut backs in staffing? Why are they hinting at going more and more digital?
[…]
Days after the 2016 election, the Times issued an apology of sorts to subscribers for failing to realize that Trump could win. “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” the publisher and editor wrote.
[…]
So now it’s time for a second apology — a sincere one. And an honest inquiry into how the paper continues to get the big stories so wrong.
Such an apology is long overdue, but even being the optimist that I am, I just do not see the NY Times issuing this type of an apology.
I mean the list of how many times the liberal media has stepped on a rake when covering this administration could stretch from New York to San Francisco. It’s got to the point where even voters who lean Democratic in swing states refuse to believe what’s being printed about the president. It’s that bad.
It really is that bad. I asked Leftyg, in another thread, why should anybody believe anything the Democratic Party says anymore, and I think the same thing should be asked of The New York Times. Yes there are other papers, magazines, radio, and television stations that could be asked the same thing. To the public, the basic question to them is: If ...X... is willing to lie so often about the big stuff, what else may they be lying about?