NYT Admits They Are Biased, Americans Say No Shit

• Of course, the Times was massively wrong and businessman Trump is now “President-elect Trump.”
• “Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting,” Goodwin wrote.

New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. vowed to “rededicate” his newspaper to “report America and the world honestly” after the paper was completely wrong with their election predictions — when they said Democrat Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide over businessman Donald Trump.

Of course, the Times was massively wrong and businessman Trump is now “President-elect Trump.”

In a letter written to the Times’ readership, Sulzberger thanked readers for their loyalty to the Times while reflecting how his newsroom could have made such horrible predictions.

[wps_products_gallery product_id=”4344660983859, 4333818544179, 4335189000243″]

In addition, Sulzberger address claims that the Times had become a highly-partisan newspaper during the election, favoring Clinton.

New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin, a former reporter for the Times, criticized the Times and their agenda-driven reporting in a column Friday.

“Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting,” Goodwin wrote. “And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.”

“Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something,” he added. “And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.”

Sulzberger’s letter came after the Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, criticized the publication for clearly favoring Clinton over Trump. According to Spayd, the newspaper often times made Clinton appear organized and statesman-like, while making Trump and his campaign appear disorderly and confused.

In the future, Spayd suggested that Times reporters and editors ask mainstream Americans their perspectives instead of crafting elaborate think-piece narratives to push an agenda.

“[A]s The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers,” she wrote Wednesday.

Source.