The NYT has a lengthy history of oozing leftwing activism in its pages.
Arthur Brisbane, the departing public editor at the New York Times, has accused the paper of having a progressive bias, even as he champions its disciplined approach to fair and balanced reporting.
“When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so,” Brisbane writes in his final column. “Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.”
“As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects,” he continues.
Brisbane’s parting shot — a rare instance in which the paper of record has been accused of bias, and championing causes, from the inside — comes at the end of his two-year tenure as public editor, during which he was tasked with critiquing the paper’s reporting. (Margaret Sullivan, the former editor of the Buffalo News, takes over next week.) Brisbane also writes that the paper is “hardly transparent,” despite efforts to increase transparency.
Brisbane’s ‘rare instance’ of accused bias usually occurs a lot more often from outside observers, who simply point to the far-left slant coming from bowels of the New York Times in every one of their editorials and in most cases, their political reporting.
The ones still in charge of the bleeding insist it’s not true:
But Times executive editor Jill Abramson says she disagrees with Brisbane’s “sweeping conclusions.”
“In our newsroom we are always conscious that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of the country or world. I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions,” Abramson told POLITICO Saturday night.
“I agree with another past public editor, Dan Okrent, and my predecessor as executive editor, Bill Keller, that in covering some social and cultural issues, the Times sometimes reflects its urban and cosmopolitan base,” she continued.
The ‘paper of record’ is just presenting the issues tailored specifically for their cosmopolitan leftwing prog readership.
We get it.
And speaking of Bill Keller, he spouted the same bullshit denial:
……we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.”
Their editorial staff reads like the Who’s Who of the Fifth Column. They refused to print an opinion piece submitted by presidential candidate John McCain right after it printed a piece by Obama saying, ‘it did not offer new information’. They revealed the name of the CIA interrogator who saved countless American lives by prying information out of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. They squelched a story that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.” They rigged an ObamaCare poll with Democrats. One of their reporters was caught organizing for the ‘Occupy’ thugs. And just to show how patriotic they are, they routinely publish classified national secrets.
Yet Jill Abramson, the latest leftwing hack on their editorial staff, really thinks no one will notice.
Jill, your proctologist called. He found your head.
- Stating the Obvious About NY Times Bias (conservativeread.com)
- NYT Ombud Knocks “Occupy” Cheerleading (commentarymagazine.com)