The publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., appealed to the Times’ readers for their continued support.
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.
Letter to NYT readers from Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet pic.twitter.com/jORqzx3BA9
— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) November 11, 2016
He insists his staff “reported on both candidates fairly,” (which isn’t true), he also vowed the paper’s staff would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.
As The New York Post’s Michael Goodwin writes: That’s the problem.
Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. 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. 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.
The letter came in the wake of the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, taking the Times to task for giving Clinton an “84 percent chance” to win as voters went to the polls.
The NYT would do well to plant some roots in Red America https://t.co/HDd4SFJqtq
— Liz Spayd (@spaydl) November 9, 2016
Spayd wrote: “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Now the bill is coming due. The paper is bleeding readers and money. Thousands of subscribers – liberal and conservative – have cancelled their subscriptions. They’re disgusted – finally –at the biased and elitist coverage. And they’re having no more of it.
For his part, the President-Elect weighed in as well:
Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the “Trump phenomena”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2016
Like us on Facebook – USA Liberty News