Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Can you believe this statement from New York Times?

Their words are like dog farts, worthless...

Sulzberger says that his paper covered the candidates fairly! He is still lying. He is too smart not to see his newspaper's bias and too dishonest to admit it. Wasn't it a NYT editor who said six months ago that their purpose was not to report news but to get Clinton elected?

NYT has lost all credibility and this jerk is asking people to remain loyal to his newspaper!
 
I'd like to post a comment on the story but have no way to sign in and don't want to sign in to their garbage dump.

The NYT version of "balance" is to report positive and negative equally. The left gets all the positive, and the right gets all the negative.

Just a bunch of crap. So long as that paper or any paper is run by liberal pukes, the "news" will be liberal BS. They can't do it any other way.

The reason the NY Times "underestimated" his support is that they never did the basic job of journalists, which is to report on the stories.

Instead, they spun the stories. They made the stories. They ignored the stories that didn't fit their agenda. In other words, they are an activist and advocacy group, not a newspaper. They weren't interested in finding the truth or reporting on facts, as they would get in the way of the agenda.

Now, they have to deal with a President and a Congress that is anathema to their agenda and they will have to put the cloak of journalism back on as they try to re-establish their agenda.

The note from Sulzberger is nothing more than a declaration to the loyalists that they will be harsh on Trump and Congress and won't give them the latitude that was given to Obama. Things they looked the other way for under Obama will be put under a microscope.

I'm Jewish and I lived in NYC for close to 10 years. The NY Times is definitely a representation of the liberal urban Jewish community, but it's also a representation of liberal urbans everywhere. I despise liberals and I despise the Times, as do many Jews in NYC and elsewhere.

..... + 1... Screw the lying S.O.B.'s and their ministry of propaganda.

Maybe they are afraid the Trump kids will buy them up.

Any real credibility will take time, trust now has to be earned.

The NYT is expensive fish wrap.

Heads should roll at all the mainstream media outlets, but they won't. Journalism is not the business that they are in.

The NYT and others went "all in", lost dramatically and now want to talk objective journalism. That concept has left the building a long time ago.

Well said.

NYT is a liberal rag, run by liberals. incapable of telling the truth!

I read that and thought you elite bastards, you are still in denial. Please do not change because you revealed your true colors and will fail eventually. Maybe not soon enough.

Just for a quicky....Google "War on Poverty" and see who pops up. It ain't the Kennedy's.... Wikipedia.

Not to say they were saints or that I'm a big fan. I'm not....

LBJ was from Texas....was he not?



"The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.

As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the federal government's roles in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies.[1] These policies can also be seen as a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four Freedoms of 1941. Johnson stated "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it".[2]

The legacy of the War on Poverty policy initiative remains in the continued existence of such federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), TRiO, and Job Corps.

The popularity of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s.[citation needed] Deregulation, growing criticism of the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the 1980s and 1990s culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which President Bill Clinton claimed, "ended welfare as we know it".......


The South was a bastion of Democratic prominence. It shares as much blame politically for this mess we have today as any northern state.

Ah, you beat me to it, and stated it better than I could have. I was born/raised in Texas, you are correct LBJ did not care about the WOP or the Affirm Action nonsense. He only did it to obtain the votes of the "colored people" for the next 100 years, he hoped...

LBJ, also not so famously then opined, IIRC, "if we pass this thing those n-----s will be voting for us for a 100 years".

Thats what I was talking' about....

publisher is a liberal. They lie

It's bad kabuki theater - 'public editor' and all.

Just like the socialist politicians the NYT supports and covers for do every election - go out and 'promise them anything' to buy their votes, then screw them for the next 4 years, bet that the chumps will forget and do it all over again.

Time for the 'newspaper of record' to become just a bad memory in the ash heap of history. Good riddance and the quicker the better.

We ain't buying yesterday's garbage. Go away.