WHAT???? New York Times vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly///ADMITTED CONSPIRACY???

What???

Ok the story is basically sorry we will do better, and they cannot deliver the independent and original journalism with out their subscribers.

The papers own public editor commented on how the paper gave Hillary a 80+% chance of winning the election the day of. The editor also thought the stories the paper ran were pro HRC and anti Trump.

what do you ATSer's think? Little to late, or giv'em another chance?

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to 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.

'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
Published November 12, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
May 14, 2014: Pedestrians wait for cabs across the street from The New York Times in New York. (AP)

May 14, 2014: Pedestrians wait for cabs across the street from The New York Times in New York. (AP)

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to 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.

New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it (The Times) 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.

Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.

She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: seasonal

what do you ATSer's think? Little to late, or giv'em another chance?

I say give em a chance to prove themselves... but watch em like a hawk! Talk is cheap.

Another paper in Florida told their readers pretty much the same thing... I'll try to find a link.

ETA: Here's one: Fla paper makes unprecedented apology to readers for anti-Trump coverage; ‘you deserve more balance’

a reply to: seasonal

I'm sure we will be seeing more of this to come.

These mainstream media publications know they're success relies on accuracy.

No doubt the entire MSM is doing damage control.

I suspect they are all going to be cleaning house this December, if you know what I mean.

originally posted by: seasonal
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.

Independent? Original? This is satire, right?

I'll take the LA Times over the NY Times in a flash.

When Carlos Slim sells his shares as top shareholder of the NYT...then I'll begin to give them the benefit of the doubt.

a reply to: seasonal

The MSM has already sold out and is a branch of the DNC and they know it.

Talk IS cheap. Let's see if they clean house because if they do not then nothing will change.

Joe Scarborough nails it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I say give em a chance to prove themselves... but watch em like a hawk! Talk is cheap.

Another paper in Florida told their readers pretty much the same thing... I'll try to find a link.

I disagree, what they did, in my mind is treasonous. The free press is a very important pillar in our method to ensure freedom.
They tried to get a person who the American people overwhelmingly said NO to. I find it hard to trust such liars.

a reply to: seasonal


So, after they admit to lying and dishonesty we are now supposed to suddenly believe them when they say they'll now start being honest. Who's to say that that isn't one big fat lie too?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

a reply to: EightAhoy

Independent? Original? This is satire, right?

I'll take the LA Times over the NY Times in a flash.
edit on 12-11-2016 by EightAhoy because: (no reason given)

Very true.

Them freaking out about libel and sedition lawsuits would be part of their damage control motives. Trump with his bizarro history of lawsuits along those kinds of lines, and lawyer team monies, they really screwed with the wrong dude whether he lost or did not.

a reply to: seasonal

Actions speak louder than words. That being said, Arthur Salzberger seems to be a good guy with young adult children who will inherit whatever we don't fix. You can't start to fix things without knowledge. I think that as long as the other owner doesn't put up any interference (ridiculous statement- why on earth would he??), I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

By the way, I found it ironic that the Fox mega machine was reporting on "honest" journalism. Just sayin'.

a reply to: infolurker

exactly!

they have to "reflect" on whether they were being honest in the past, wait..what?
at the time that they write the story if they don`t know if they are being honest then they shouldn`t print it.

I would have more respect for them if they just told the truth:
" during the presidential campaign we lied and many of you knew we were lying.Our lies have cost us subscribers so in an attempt to regain subscribers we are making a statement that we will be more honest, would please re-subscribe"

I'll 2nd Celente's opinion, he calls the NYT "The Toilet Paper of Record"

We all knew that HuffPo, Daily KOS, Politico had their slant, which is fine, there are plenty to counter them on the right...

WAPO and NYT were supposed to set the standard of journalism, Bezos and Slim have permanently destroyed that...


THe NDAA needs to be repealed, so Propaganda against the citizens of the US is once again a punishable crime...

a reply to: timidgal

Actions speak louder than words. That being said, Arthur Salzberger seems to be a good guy with young adult children who will inherit whatever we don't fix. You can't start to fix things without knowledge. I think that as long as the other owner doesn't put up any interference (ridiculous statement- why on earth would he??), I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

By the way, I found it ironic that the Fox mega machine was reporting on "honest" journalism. Just sayin'.

They can have no actions to loud enough to rectify the filthy conspiracy they have hatched.

I think they think the public is the abused spouse that returns over and over to the abuser.

I think it is time to divorce our country to the ADMITTED conspirators.

That is what this is, a conspiracy to get HRC elected. This is why we are here!!!!!

a reply to: seasonal

If Hillary had been Elected , would they be so Quick to " Change Their Tune " ? Of Course Not , They Always have had a Liberal Agenda , that Will Never Change . You would Still get More " Truth " from the Freakin' National Enquirer than you would from that NYT Rag.........

NYT: Day late, Dollar short.

Seeing how Trump turned around an election that a year ago was LAUGHED at, by just saying "yeah i did bad stuff but i mean good", maybe the paper is using the same tactic.

"We're sorrrrrry, we be good now honest guv"

a reply to: seasonal

The New York Times is laughing stock.

2nd.

After the disaster of a headline they ran to cover the election result, they are finished.
It might carry on under new ownership or just fizzle out to be replaced by a proper paper.

When the 'reporter' roster covers idiot like Charles Blow, then you know it's over for them.