I’m Not Making This Up, You Know

Jim Rutenberg, the “Mediator” at the New York Times, has an opinion piece up expressing concern over the challenge of reporting objectively on Donald Trump.

It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Walter Duranty was unavailable for comment. Read the whole thing.

27 thoughts on “I’m Not Making This Up, You Know

  1. This is the same newspaper that recently published a story talking about the harmful effects of man discovering fire.

    I want you to pause and contemplate this.

    The downsides. Of FIRE.

    Some of these idiots need to be sent, buck naked, into the wilderness, to see if they can even survive.

    • The first bug bite would drive them crazy, never mind going through the night without their phones to chatter with their friends would drive them insane!

    • Can I just say that the ending of Tom Clancy’s novel Rainbow Six is the best thing I have ever read on this topic?

    • Oh, but the opportunities for snark the fire article offered!

      Like how the development of language/ writing/ the printing press had harmful effects, as exemplified by the NY Times.

  2. Does the New York Times have zero self awareness? They have been solidly anti-Republican for at least the last 20 years.

    Actually, reading through the whole thing, it sounds like concern trolling. It is facially about Journalism, but really just an anti-Trump hit piece.

    • This is just more proof that the New York Times is so far Left that they see anything that is in the Political Middle as being an extremist position! Which makes true Conservative positions and values very dangerous to their liberal safe space in Manhattan.

  3. One day last week, the NYT published 6 news stories against Trump, 5 letters against Trump, and 2 opinion pieces against Trump. There were no negative stories or op-eds about HRC.

    • They can’t find anyone [in their offices] with anything bad to say about Hillary, except a couple who think she’s too conservative.

    • Exactly. I’ve got no problem with people pointing out issues with the canditates. But when they express grave concerns about one, and ignore multiple issues with the other, that’s bad. Democracy undermining bad.

      (My overall thesis on this is that the Republic is already lost. The least bloody way forward would be to dissolve the union and let states join up in new ones as they see fit.)

  4. What the readers of The Times want to know about:
    If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

    So, in other words, how the heck are you supposed to deal with your unfair and unfounded bias? What a quandary.

  5. a reporter’s job is to report world events in a way that compels the consumers of their work product to continue consuming what they produce versus what others produce. Which in a distilled form is pretty much a description of EVERY job. The consumers in this case aren’t even the public, but their bosses. The bosses aren’t obligated to serve the public, only to increase the perceived value of their brand. And while it is their job to increase that value, that doesn’t mean their perception of HOW to do so would necessarily be right. Self interests and personal ideas can easily cloud decision making. If that was not the case, no business would ever fail. One of the better critiques about state control of resources is from this perspective, that humans make mistakes so if you invest all of a capacity into one group of humans without competition, the odds of actually getting something that even reaches the standard of average is fairly low.

    What value is the incentive to report the truth if it would be limiting to your career? How would you way fairness when your boss hates the person you’re to talk about? Rather, wouldn’t a newsroom where you held a completely different set of values from your boss and your co-workers be a toxic work environment? Humans aren’t saints in the first place, and will always weigh various values in order to determine what they should do. Some hold truth at a high level while others value other things more, but even if you hold truth as a high value, would that override the values of those who sign your pay check in the final output of your business?

    • If you hold Truth at a high level, you would never survive as a MSM journalist. You would be fired in your first week, second if you got a couple warnings and talkings-to first.

      Man is basically evil.
      Thus, the need for Golgotha.

      • *Pedantry alert*

        I’m going to assume you mean that fateful day when Herod II ran Jerusalem (as a Roman puppet) and Pilate ran Palestine.

        Golgotha was just a convenient show place for the Romans to drive home their point. That, of course, being; don’t ‘F’ with Rome.

  6. So the NYT thinks that their reporters were purely objective about other Republican candidates in the past?

    • “The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again.”

      Yeah. Can’t really find a way to disagree with this…

Leave a Reply