New York Times

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to be biased (which is another way of saying deceiving, commit lies of omission, or not trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, some insist on idol worship for what they publish, and abject denial of their obvious and omitted bias: and that fuels the backlash against them.

Admitted Bias


Those denying the bias are just demonstrating their own bias, or at least lack of observational awareness to everyone who knows anything on the topic. I'm not saying every article or topic is bad, they have an infrequent good or balancing piece in there. But they are consistently wrong (either entirely or in degrees) on every topic that is later exposed as a fake scandal, exaggeration, or someone is revealed to have an agenda. And they are consistently scooped, or get caught ignoring, scandals on the left -- that people later show they had early hints of, or people even exposed to them, and they buried the story, because it didn't fit their agendas. Even their own staff readily admits the bias, sometimes on the record, often only off (some want to keep the charade of "All the News That's Fit to Print", except for that they really don't like).

Here's some examples of admitted bias:

  • Liz Spayd (Ombudsman 2016) admits they were biased and did a poor job of balance in the election. [1]
  • Jim Rutenberg (Political Editor) wrote articles in the NYT admitting they were biased with regards to Trump... but it was "their duty" because Trump was mean (politically incorrect). [2]
  • Arthur S. Brisbane (Ombudsman 2012) admits progressive idealism permeates the paper (and others agreed with the observation) [3]
  • Margaret Sullivan (Ombudsman / Public Editor 2012) also admitted the paper had a liberal bias.[4]
  • Daniel Okrent (Ombudsman 2004) had said the same thing... only worse, “yes we’re biased left, but it’s because we’re right”. To quote him, “[the op-ed] is thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right”.[5]
  • Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. (the publisher), said it’s not so much as liberal but “urban” bias. But that’s a euphemism for provincial coastal progressivism (which is the same thing).

The obvious problem was that since all their ombudsmen (Public editors) are telling them there's a problem, their solution was to eliminate the role. Poof, no more bias. (LOL). [6]

But other than 4 ombudsman, the publisher, and multiple writers all admitting they were more a biased propaganda outfit than a News Organizations (e.g. they had more interest in their agenda than telling the whole truth), what do you have? Oh, so much more.

Off the record

Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching — even when doing the wrong thing is legal.

~ Misattributed to Aldo Leopold

Origin unknown

Well, investigative journalism is finding out what people say, when they think no one else is watching. One of the top organizations still finding out what people say when they think no one is watching, is Jame's O'keefe's Project Veritas. They did a series on the Times titled "American Pravda" (a term for the Times that I and others had used for generations).

  • Part 1: Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT admitted the Times always slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, that he openly worked for Obama/Hillary campaign, that Comey was his godfather, that he would never be objective, and other conflicts of interests. [PV 1]
  • Part 2: Nick Dudich went further by explaining how he was using friendships and coordination with YouTube (like Earnest Pettie) to manipulate social media to intentionally influence the news. [PV 2]
  • NYT Responds by claiming Dudich was only in a junior position, and violated their standards, so this mess should be ignored. [PV 3] Then it appears they fired him for telling the truth and embarassing the Times. [PV 4] Of course I have no problems with firing people with telling lies, but Krugman and other editors are allowed to say if they do that. But telling the truth can be career ending.
  • Part 3: Des Shoe, Senior Home Page Editor, Admits a company culture of blatant DNC leaning bias at NYT, and their agenda is to sensationalize anti-Trump rhetoric, because that gets them subscribers. [PV 5]
  • Part 4: Todd Gordon, IT Consultant (for 20 years) for The New York Times, Admits a blatant "Fuck Trump" bias at the NYT, and that they hate Trump, and they intentionally treat him unfairly. [PV 6]

Observed bias

Other places noticed the bias as well:

  • New York Post has commented on it [7]
  • There were sites dedicated to monitoring the NYT bias... but it became so obvious that they shut it down. It's like reporting that Michael Moore is a fat socialist, it's so obvious that people get bored. [8]
  • Columbia journalism school case study on bias at the NYT:[9]
  • Anyone with a clue about economics has mocked Paul Krugman, their economics spokesperson. There's whole sites dedicated to his biases and hypocrisy -- flipping 180° on his positions, depending on if the President has a (d) or (r) after their name. But he's the top of the iceberg.
  • Their positions on the NRA, Race, Consistency across administrations. You can predict how the NYT will respond to a current event by asking what the DNC position is, and how they would spin it, then reading that position in the NYT. [10]
  • Others point out this trick where they always mention party affiliation is there's a Republican involved in a scandal, but Democrats are outliers and party affiliation is never worthy of mention.[11]


This isn't new, the NYT often sympathized with Anti-Americanism and false narratives. Read about:

  • Hitler Apologism, as well as Kim Jong Un (and his ancestors).
  • Walter Duranty, and while the Ukrainian Gennoacide is going on, he's not only being a Stalin Apologist and covering it up, but attacking other journalists as non-credibly for trying to expose it. And of course winning awards for helping the Soviets exterminate political threats via one of the greatest famines in the world. (The civil rights Paul Krugman of his day). [12]
  • Rampant fans of Maoism, while 10's of millions were getting mass murdered, or cultural revolutions (oppression of conservatives) is going on, the NYT is playing fanboy to their cause. [13]
  • Their support of Castro and supporting of his claims that he was "not a communist" and they had no influence in his regime
    • Note they STILL do it, with the Times saying how women had better sex under Socialism, or how Communism taught Women to dream big, and other such apologisms.[14]
  • Attacks on Reagan for calling USSR the "Evil Empire" (shhh, don't mention the Gulags and mass murder) [15],
  • And in general, an Anti-military position, combined with anti-Iraq War stories were always big news (while anything that showed justification, like Oil for Weapons, torture by the baathists, or other things were minimized). Code Pink was celebrated when GWB was in office, and never ever reported on again once Obama (the drone strikingest Peace Prize Holder in history).
  • Their support and discounted advertising for anti-tolerance Soros fronts like MoveOn, Black Lives Matters, Occupy Wall Street.
  • Even when the Boston Marathon Bombing happened, the NYT was out there speculating it must have been those evil right wingers again... and the palpable disappointment, and apologist position (for the bombers), when it turned out to be muslim refugees. [16]. But get one fanatic on the other side that has no ties to anyone (like Dylan Roof) and they play it off as institutional problems within the mainstream right.
  • They protect liberals and got caught spiking the John Edwards scandal story, and got scooped by their less biased (and investigative superior) competitor: the National Enquirer. Or they did the same with Harvey Weinstein.
  • They got caught suppressing stories like Benghazi, IRS Scandal, Wikileaks on topics they didn't want to touch
  • While they got way ahead of the truth on stories like Trump Russia connection, because it fit their political agenda
  • Look at them on Climate Scarism (no credibility left) :
  • They invent stories like "Pence is going to run against Trump in 2020" -- which Pence calls "Laughably Absurd]". Who are you going to believe?
  • They compare Manson (a far left hippie trying to start a race war) to Donald Trump in a serious article [17]


The consequence of all that obvious bias, is that they have they crashed in trustability... and they destroyed trust in the media (or are at least contributors to the problem), and brought the whole industry down. [18].

The question is if 75%+ of people out there, don't trust the Newspapers, then don't you think they might be doing something wrong? And don't you think there's something wrong with the other 25%? (That just happen to be strongly liberal/democrat)? If you filter out the partisans and just look at the informed, trust in the New York Times is even lower.

Since College Graduates have less trust than the less educated, so their narrative that it's just the uneducated conservatives that don't trust them is backwards. The more you do research, and fact check them, you're less likely to trust them in the future.

When you track subscription rates over the decades, they've plummeted. (Though there's been a small Trump spike amongst the far left). More and more people are wising up to not reading partisan propaganda rags to get "news". [19]


They really want to program into their readership that there's two classes of people: your betters and the hoi polloi (the rest of us): the ones that don't have the lavish weddings, have ungodly sense of fashion or trends. In the rest of the nation, man buns and perfectly coifed beards and plaid shirts on a guy faux-lumberjack that has a list of his favorite "products" for hair and body, but can't work an axe or saw, is something to be mocked. In NYT it's something to be celebrated like fake Boobs in Hollywood.[20]


But they still win more awards than other papers?

Yes, far lefties give other far lefties participation trophies, that doesn't mean they're any good, it means that they say things other far left organizations want to hear. Look through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners for conservatives. There's a handful in there, but it's about 10:1 towards lefties. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for most drone bombings of any other President.

Incompetence as a Defense


To remind us of how bad/incompetent they are, their own lawyers used it as a defense of the publication.

A short summary was NYT charged Palin/Tea Party with being responsible for Gabby Giffords shooting in 2011, because she once ran a campaign flyer that had crosshairs of various weak districts (including hers), and a conservative loon had obviously followed their suggestion. The Democrats had of course done the same exact thing to Republican districts (or used targets), but the Times doesn't let moral consistency get in the way of slander piece.

So anyways, NYT trashed her in 2011. The shooter (Jared Lee Loughner) was not a conservative (as the paper had misreported), he was actually a left leaning loon (his favorite book was the Communist Manifesto, he hated Bush, loved John Kerry, was an atheist and so on). He had met Gifford before, and he had never seen or was aware of the crosshair flyer, and his reasons were his delusions and conspiracies and he was reasoned to be mentally incompetent. The Times had reluctantly published all that, eventually in their News sections, but continued to publish articles in their Editorial pages that trashed Palin (and made linkages between Palin and Loughner, that their News pages had admitted weren't there).

Palin sued for defamation. And the Times defense, was that their editorial folks shouldn't be expected to fact check, or even read their own paper. So their defense what they were negligent, but not malicious by repeating mistruths months after they had been corrected in their own paper. Their exact words were,

We think the evidence against the Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.

~ New York Times Lawyers, arguing they were negligent.

Eventually, the Judge sided with the NYT and ruled that NY Times can win a case by proving the author of the NY Times Editorial doesn't read the NY Times (nor did any of the fact checkers or editorial staff that the piece went through), so can't be expected to know they were slandering Palin. So their incompetence has become so accepted, that they can dodge responsibilities for truthfulness, that you and I as non journalists, would never get away with. [21]

More Demonstrations of bias

NYT Gun Editorial

The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the turret or not care.

NYT FakeNews about Guns


There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?



Halliburton is an “evil conspiracy” that George W and Dick Cheney are conspiring to pay off the company that is cheating us? Usually those saying it ignore the far bigger corruption of their favorite Presidents; FDR, Bill Clinton, Johnson, JFK, Nixon and so on. Yet, there’s no evidence of corruption or payoffs in the Halliburton case (unlike some others I mentioned).

Tax Code Correction:


  1. Liz Spayd:
  2. Jim Rutenberg on admitted bias against Trump:
  3. Arthur Brisbane admits progressive bias:
  4. Margaret Sullivan admits bias:
  5. Daniel Okrent 2004 on their bias:
  6. Killing the messenger:
  7. NYPost on Times Bias:
  8. Times Watch:
  9. Columbia on NYT Bias:
  10. Examples of NYT DNC Party Platform positions:
  11. Party Affiliation: *
  12. Holodomor:
  13. Foster Hailey, New York Times Magazine, (December 22, 1946), pp. 40-41.
  14. Times on Communism and Women:
  15. Attacks on Reagan:
  16. Poor terrorists:
  17. Manson was a right winger:
  18. Crashing trust in NYT and Newsprint in general:
  19. Subscriptions:
  20. Elitism:
  21. Incompetence as Defense:

More Links

Project Veritas