‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards…’
(Kaylee McGhee, Liberty Headlines) A former New York Times executive editor slammed the paper in her upcoming book for its “unmistakably” anti-Trump bias and its lack of objective reporting.
Jill Abramson, who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, said The Times had a financial incentive to bash the president, according to Fox News. The lack of balance on the paper’s pages, however, has destroyed its credibility, she said.
In Abramson’s soon-to-be published book, “Merchants of Truth,” she criticized the current editor, the unabashedly leftist Dean Baquet: “Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want The Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson wrote, adding that she believed the same was true of The Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”
But while Baquet has publicly expressed the need to shift journalistic conventions in order to cover the extraordinary circumstances of the Trump presidency, Abramson said it was the newsroom, not Trump, that would suffer the fallout.
“The more anti-Trump The Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased,” she added.
President Trump has frequently criticized The Times’s negative coverage of his administration, claiming that he keeps the “failing” Times in business.
“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for The Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated,” Abramson wrote.
Abramson said Trump doesn’t handle the criticism well and claims that his “fake news” attacks are a “cheap way of trying to undermine the credibility of The Times’s reporting as something to be accepted as truth only by liberals in urban, cosmopolitan areas.”
The former editor attributed the paper’s blatant bias to the supposed generational split among its staff, noting that younger reporters tend to be more open about their anti-Trump opinions.
“The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” Abramson said.