The New York Time has recently launched its new “Truth” campaign, with slogans like ‘The Truth Is More Important Now Than Ever, Discover It With Us’ and ‘Just Facts, No Alternatives,’ and ‘The Truth is Hard’
Unfortunately, recent NYTimes reporting has been so utterly biased against the President Trump, it has degraded to the level of propaganda. Almost every story I read concerning the Trump Administration appears to be on the attack and a frequent feature of these articles are gratuitous insults, murky facts, and a lack of reputable sourcing.
Do you remember Orwell’s 1984 and the Ministry of Truth? In his narrative, the Ministry of Truth was a government entity responsible for ensuring that people think “correctly.” It established “doublethink” where one could hold diametrically opposed concepts in one’s head at the same time without conflict. Its slogans were “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
In this author’s opinion the NYTimes is the 2017 iteration of the Ministry of Truth, ironically reflected in their new advertising slogan. Anything ‘Trump’ is bad, Hillary’s crimes are not crimes, Obama’s criminal mis-use of secret intelligence assets to spy on Americans is no problem. The facts can be twisted but the message must be maintained. Political correctness must be defended, and anyone who does not use politically correct terms and methods must be corrected or sanctioned immediately.
It is childish, it is unprofessional. Trump’s victory was a crushing blow and Trump rubbed it in. I get it, they are hurt.
Today’s articles for example:
In a House Divided, Bannon’s Feud With Kushner Escalates
Really? You have “sources” who are concerned with internal squabbles and think this is news, or that it has any relevance to current events? Does this reporter actually know what is happening there, or is it merely 4th hand gossip? Did these two passionate patriots actually raise their voices??
Even if it is true, people argue all the time at every level of government. If Bannon has diarrhea, is that news too? Publishing this article only makes sense from the perspective that the NYTimes wants its readers to think he Trump Administration is in a state of disarray.
CIA Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed
Unfortunately the article does not say what the evidence was. We all know that if there were such evidence, no matter if it were classified, it would have been leaked by now. There are plenty of greedy, unethical politicians who would jump at the chance to get something that juicy into the public eye, it would be irresistible.
In fact, I wish there had been some particular evidence that could be quantified and dated. The whole line of Russia-Trump collusion would be dead by now. This story added no new information to the public domain. It was meaningless except to bash Trump.
Acting on Instinct, Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy
Obviously the article title is designed to make Trump look like an impulsive flip flopper. But this premise is ignorance itself.
Yes, Trump did campaign on “America First” and making an example of Syria when it uses chemical weapons, to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the future, and to show we are not afraid, is entirely in keeping with that goal. He responded to a chemical attack, he did not put troops on the ground or declare war on any side.
The author describes this as “instinct” and “an emotional act,” he is claiming to have interpreted Trump’s mindset, basically by watching the same news media I watch, except he has an overbearing bias against Trump. I guess he didn’t watch the part where Trump’s team debated this for two days. This article adds nothing to the discussion except one more random attack on Trump.
Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Turn on Him Over Syria Strikes
First, the New York Times has no idea what “far right” means. There are a lot of ultra-conservatives who don’t believe the moon landing is a hoax nor that Elvis is still alive. They quote only one editor from conspiracy site Info Wars, an obscure blogger and some other activist I’ve never heard of. These few examples are generalized into all “far-right” conservatives. I guess NYTimes writers never when to college and studied basic logic where you are taught cannot take three examples and generalize to hundreds of media sources. Then the article quotes some major conservative media pundits as supporting Trump. I guess the article is trying to be “balanced” but nobody will read “balanced” in the anti-Trump headline.
To be honest, the Washington Post is no better. In today’s online edition I see at least 12 articles that mention Trump, only one had a headline with a positive spin, the rest had an anti-Trump spin. The Huffington Post and Politico are designed as left wing propaganda sheets, so we expect it from them.
The NYTimes is in trouble, in my opinion. Is this the “Gray Lady” so respected in its historical past? Would Adolph Ochs (owner in 1900 who radically expanded the company) be proud of what he sees now? Does the New York Times uphold the journalistic standard set by the likes of Walter Cronkite and his contemporaries?
The answer is no. Instead of honest and balanced reporting, we have constant biased commentary, lacking in coherent facts or message. They have adopted an “infotainment” approach, playing to the liberal audience it serves. In its political reporting, the NYTimes is a mix of sensational headlines and outright propaganda, not gathered independently by journalists with high integrity, but directed from above by people with an axe to grind, directing reporters with no conceptual views, who live and die by their clickthrough numbers.
The NYTimes has named themselves well, in my mind they are from here forward, The Ministry of Truth.
Author’s note: If you actually want to know what is going on without the spin, Newsmax is a much better place to be. Or perhaps TheHill.com, they at least publish both sides. Or maybe even the PunchingBag Post (conservative) together PunchingBag Times (progressive), which have opposite spins.