August 7, 2019

"'Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,' was the correct description in the first headline by the Failing New York Times, but it was quickly changed to, 'Assailing Hate But Not Guns'..."

"... after the Radical Left Democrats went absolutely CRAZY! Fake News - That’s what we’re up against... 'This is an astounding development in journalism. I’ve never seen it happen before, I’ve just never seen anything like this! Is that journalism today? I don’t think so!' Mark Penn, Former Clinton Advisor.
@TuckerCarlson After 3 years I almost got a good headline from the Times!"

Tweeted Trump this morning.

We talked about the NYT headline switcheroo yesterday, here.

Here's some discussion of the topic in the Columbia Journalism Review, "Times public editor: The readers versus the masthead":
[R]eader expectations of the Times have shifted after the election of President Trump. The paper... saw a huge surge of subscriptions in the days and months after the 2016 election... The Times has since embraced these new subscribers in glitzy commercials with slogans like “The truth is more important now than ever.” Yet there is a glaring disconnect between those energized readers and many Times staffers, especially newspaper veterans. [Executive Editor Dean] Baquet doesn’t see himself as the vanguard of the resistance... He acknowledges that people may have a different view of what the Times is, but he doesn’t blame the marketing. “It’s not because of the ads; it’s because Donald Trump has stirred up very powerful feelings among Americans. It’s made Americans, depending on your point of view, very angry and very mistrustful of institutions. And some may think newsrooms like the New York Times and the Washington Post are supposed to be Donald Trump’s adversaries or the leaders of the adversarial movement to take down Donald Trump.... I think it’s healthy for each generation to come in and discuss what the rules are. You have to accept that there’s something at the core of the New York Times and the Washington Post that won’t change, but there’s a lot that can change at the edges.”

47 comments:

Nonapod said...

It's weird. People still seem to be laboring under the assumption that the function of the Times is to report news despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The NYT is pablum for bubble dwellers who really aren't interested in hearing stuff they might disagree with, even if it may happen to be true. As we saw yesterday, they get very upset when something disagreeable is presented to them. Trump is just gleefully pointing this out.

traditionalguy said...

The trouble is the Fusion GPS style strategy of calling Trump and his Deplorables Racists and KKK Nazis seeking concentration camps for all but chosen Nordic blonde and blue eyed Russian people.

After pushing that slander narrative 24/7 for 2+ years they are caught out by their brainwashed readers when they slip up and disclose some truth.

Journalism is long dead. The part of the Internet where Free Speech occurs is the only source of reason and facts being discussed anymore. Which is why the #1 goal of the World Governance Marxists is shutting down the internet free speech.

tim maguire said...

Was that a long-winded way of saying he lacks the courage of his convictions?

mccullough said...

The Times and the Post have been the Gazettes for Rich, White Liberals for a long time.

They are fucking crazy so the Gazettes give them what they want.

PB said...

Leftists are the dwindling base of subscribers to the NY Times. Can't piss them of by being objective or truthful.

readering said...

Funny when you remember AA mixed up the sequence.

readering said...

Dwindling base? If only I had bought NYT stock on 11/9!

CJinPA said...

[R]eader expectations of the Times have shifted after the election of President Trump.

More likely, reader expectations shifted three months *before* the election when the paper posted a front-page opinion piece making the case against objectivity in journalism.

You can't feed the fervor for openly partisan reporting and then claim your core "won't change." The headline switch was the clearest example of swapping What Happened with What Should Happen journalism.

Jim Gust said...

It seems to me that after President Trump tires of watching Fox News he reads the Althouse Blog as tweeting research.

Smart.

YoungHegelian said...

And some may think newsrooms like the New York Times and the Washington Post are supposed to be Donald Trump’s adversaries or the leaders of the adversarial movement to take down Donald Trump....

Oh, & by "Some" you mean your market audience, Mr Baquet?

It's problematic for a business when you can't honestly say in public what your target market is, either through management's ignorance or mendacity. This dust-up between the NYT & its readership will no doubt make for a fine case study for some future MBA student in how businesses destroy themselves.

hombre said...

NYT editors: A study in lack of self awareness and incuriousness.

n.n said...

Which is why the #1 goal of the World Governance Marxists is shutting down the internet free speech.

Another corporation, Cloudflare, has joined Google/Alphabet, Twitter, et al, to speak truth to fascism under the pretense of "inclusion". Join the revolution!

Bay Area Guy said...

I urge unity for all Americans against false claims of racism.

PM said...

The NYT wants a younger demographic. That's why all the shrieks & spittle.

rcocean said...

Just change their name from the New York Times to the New York Liberal-Democrat.

Bay Area Guy said...

Poor phrasing on my part. If I had a good editor it would read:

I urge all Americans of every race, creed, and color, gay or straight, old or young, to unite against all false claims of racism!

EDH said...

You have to accept that there’s something at the core of the New York Times and the Washington Post that won’t change, but there’s a lot that can change at the edges.

Yet, what won't change at "the core" of the NYT and WaPo is that the liberal "slant" of the news has always been in effect.

Kevin said...

"You have to accept that there’s something at the core of the New York Times and the Washington Post that won’t change, but there’s a lot that can change at the edges."

Headlines. Headlines can change.

Perhaps some of the text in the article. In the future, it could be crowdsourced.

Like what Trump said. We could ask our readers to interpret what he really meant and swap that in for his actual words.

We'd have to indicate that somehow. Perhaps with some kind of symbol.

Like Trump says, "I love all Americans and will not stand for hate."

And our readers would say the message they received was (DOG WHISTLE) "I hate Mexicans and Elizabeth Warren would be a much better President." (/DOG WHISTLE)

Crowdsourcing headlines is a more difficult task. There's just too much leeway there.

It collapses quickly to Trump Sucks!!!

We can't have that on the front page every day. People might not have a reason to check the news.

So our IT people are working on ways to help our readers come up with new versions of "Trump Sucks" that we might be able to use.

Like Poopyhead Trump Said Something Stupid. Or Trumpy McTrumpface Didn't End Homelessness Today.

After all, reader interaction is the future.

And it's been made very clear the last thing our readers want is someone telling them what's really happening in the world.

Kevin said...

I, for one, applaud the Times' effort to move America's focus off manifestos and mass shootings to its lack of journalistic standards.

it's a bold move to help the country heal.

Nichevo said...


readering said...
Dwindling base? If only I had bought NYT stock on 11/9!

8/7/19, 10:54 AM


You still couldn't vote it.

Critter said...

Did he just say that telling the truth about facts is at the edges of journalism?

FleetUSA said...

The news people at the MSM should just report FACTS and leave it to expressly editorial parts of the papers and programs to opine as to what they would wish us to believe.
Sadly I think this is a lost art.

Martin said...

"You have to accept that there’s something at the core of the New York Times and the Washington Post that won’t change, but there’s a lot that can change at the edges.”

As in, the core dishonesty won't change but the dishonesty at the edges could get worse?

Bay Area Guy said...

I get confused on whether I'm supposed to assail hate or hate to assail.

Maybe the NYT can provide some guidance on this.

doctrev said...

Admittedly, the NYT sees itself as being "above" the New York Post and the Daily News. They're not wrong: the Daily News are a bunch of insane mouthbreathers, and I will NEVER forgive the New York Post and its owners for betraying the Second Amendment on assault rifles. At least the NYT sometimes comes up with some decent investigative reports. But if they can be bullied by the proles into changing headlines from neutral to Daily News, the writing is on the wall. The super rich softlings who love to humblebrag in the NYT are uniquely unfit for the staggering amount of violence and terror to come.

Michael said...

“It’s not because of the ads; it’s because Donald Trump has stirred up very powerful feelings among Americans. It’s made Americans, depending on your point of view, very angry and very mistrustful of institutions. "

Totally bass-ackwards. It's the failure of our institutions which generated the anger leading to the election of Trump. The Manhattan Bubble refuses to see the true cause/effect.

wendybar said...

I'm glad this happened. Now there is irreputable proof that the media is the Propaganda arm of the Democratic party as it is now.

TreeJoe said...

Am I the only one who feels that we are at the beginning of a revolution in reporting and news?

You cannot be in the business of selling trust (i.e. what I say is carefully analyzed and the best available information at the time I say it) and yet be untrusted by the majority of those receiving the information.

Further, you can't sell trust and act in a biased and untrustworthy way.

At a minimum, there needs to emerge a new set of journalistic standards whereby news and opinion is kept completely separate.

CNN, NYT, WaPo, and so many others have given up on this - mixing reporting with opinion in the same article, paragraph, sentence, etc.



James K said...

I find the second headline just as favorable to Trump as the first, as would anyone outside of the UWS-beltway bubble. It’s only the NYT core readership that thinks guns must be “assailed.”

walter said...

Sulzy's letter to readers 2016

walter said...

"As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, 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, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. 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.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty."

Rob said...

In his influential August 2016 column, NYT media analyst Jim Rutenberg pretty much said that Trump is an existential threat and justifies a departure from the standard journalistic objectivity in coverage. Not long afterwards, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet essentially endorsed what Rutenberg had written.

Since then, with rare exceptions, the New York Times has engaged in guerilla warfare against Trump and the Trump Administration. Of all the consequences of the Trump presidency, the Times's conscious abandonment of objectivity (in which it is joined by the Washington Post) may be the one that does the most damage to our polity. Of course the Times hasn't been wholly objective in at least a generation, but at least it purported to be and promoted objectivity as a value. Now it's a declared combatant in the political wars, and we are all the worse for it.

404 Page Not Found said...

"standard journalistic objectivity in coverage", eh?

I've been reading the Washington Post since the late 60's, and I have never seen such a standard. I gave up on The Post back in the 90's.

mccullough said...

Their reporting about Obama’s administration was worse than their Trump reporting.

It wasn’t until Trump won that their readers had some idea that vast swaths of the country had a different view.

Those readers are now surprised, again, that the Dem candidates aren’t embracing Obama. Maybe Biden is a bit. To the extent he even knows what’s Obama did and didn’t do.

Sebastian said...

"there’s a lot that can change at the edges"

They've long since gone over the edges.

The SWIFT front-page treason is still the paradigmatic case: the casual betrayal of a secret, legal program to track and obstruct our adversaries, needlessly exposed to our detriment, aiding and abetting the enemy without a second thought.

Two things have changed: in the age of Trump, their partisanship is even more blatant, and as a result of their leftward move their audience is even more rabidly left, setting in motion a destructive spiral, illustrated by the headline change.

From the sidelines, a nice liberal like Althouse occasionally buts in: that headline is so misleading! journalists shouldn't do that! it's sad! Then comes the next fabricated headline, the next anti-Trump screed, the next bit of fake news, each item of prog propaganda a big FU to the nice Althouses of America.

StephenFearby said...

doctrev said...
"Admittedly, the NYT sees itself as being "above" the New York Post and the Daily News. They're not wrong: the Daily News are a bunch of insane mouthbreathers, and I will NEVER forgive the New York Post and its owners for betraying the Second Amendment on assault rifles."

At least one member of the NY Post's editorial staff is trying to make amends:

OPINION
The New York Times doesn’t write headlines anymore – the mob does
By Kyle Smith

'...So the Times caved and changed the headline to “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.” Trump’s speech was supposed to assail guns? “Curse you, inanimate objects!”

There should probably be at least one small corner of the media devoted to opinion-untainted reporting of the facts, a k a, “the news.” A good test for whether you are writing news or opinion is the following: Can the reader guess which way the writer voted? Don’t laugh: There used to be such reporting. Nowadays you can’t even find it at the Associated Press.

The Times’ policy since forever was to surround the main news stories with “news analysis,” i.e., barely disguised opinion columns, just so you’d know not just the facts but what to think about them. The Times did so again, in its Monday night package on Trump’s speech. Its reporters offered opinions like “Mr. Trump is ill-equipped to provide the kind of unifying, healing force that other presidents projected in times of national tragedy.”

So there was plenty for Trump haters to feast on, right there on the front page. Somehow this isn’t enough anymore. Contempt, ridicule, mistrust and disgust with everything Trump says or does has to be right there in the headline, even if there is only room for five words.

If the Times proved that it’s in the tank for Donald J. Trump by running the entirely accurate headline “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM,” the memo didn’t make it over to the Opinion section, where we were offered a vast panoply of takes ranging from “When the President Is a Bigot, the Poison Spreads” (Susan E. Rice) to “This Is What Happens When Our Leader Normalizes Hate” (Janet Murguia) to my favorite, “Trump Is A White Nationalist Who Inspires Terrorism” (the Spinal Tap of columnists, Michelle Goldberg, who never fails to dial it up to 11).

Two years ago, Times reporter David Sanger noted, “The biggest single mistake we could do in navigating our coverage of the Trump administration would be to let ourselves become the resistance to the government in place.” If so, the Times should tell Resistance Twitter to stuff it instead of inviting it to rewrite the front page.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/07/the-new-york-times-doesnt-write-headlines-anymore-the-mob-does/

wild chicken said...

I heard that NPR's listeners were actually irate about its perceived "neutrality"..that their stories weren't end-timesy enough?

Is this true? I may have to start listening.

narciso said...

it's like different song, with the same notes,

Drago said...

I wonder what AOC and antifa will allow the NYT to print tomorrow.

I sure hope its all the news thats fit to print!

narciso said...

or the bulwark, Charles sykes seems to have lost it, if he ever had it.

Unknown said...

Trump didn't stir up the snowflakes. They stir themselves up. Getting upset is the center of their existence with triggers, offenses, victim-hood. They live in the least oppressive time in history and they see nothing but oppression. Trump didn't bring that. Hell, without him they would all be directionless, bored assholes instead of stirred up assholes.

daskol said...

“It’s not because of the ads; it’s because Donald Trump has stirred up very powerful feelings among Americans. It’s made Americans, depending on your point of view, very angry and very mistrustful of institutions. "

Totally bass-ackwards. It's the failure of our institutions which generated the anger leading to the election of Trump. The Manhattan Bubble refuses to see the true cause/effect.

Is that you, Fox Butterfield?

Drago said...

narciso: "or the bulwark, Charles sykes seems to have lost it, if he ever had it."

That would be LLR Chuck-approved Deadbeat Dad Charlie Sykes.

Michael K said...

Blogger readering said...
Dwindling base? If only I had bought NYT stock on 11/9!


If only I had bought gun maker stocks before Obama was elected.

Michael K said...

It's the failure of our institutions which generated the anger leading to the election of Trump

Probably a little closer to the "wet streets cause rain" theme of Michael Crichton's essay on Murray Gell-Mann amnesia.

Fen said...

I'm so old I still remember when Godwin's Law was in play, like it was yesterday.

It was a day on Facebook when I first heard that Trump was "literally" Hitler.

The Left changed all their rules quicker than "we have always been at war with EastAsia."

Fen said...

"You have to accept that there’s something at the core of a street corner hooker that won’t change, but there’s a lot that can change at the edges.”

FIFY

Hey, she traded in her needles for a metal straw and her STDs are in remission! Yay.