December 1, 2017

The New York Times needs to decide whether it’s going to be a newspaper or a lobbyist organization. It really can’t be both.

It was already headed in the opposite direction of “newspaper.” Along with many other news outlets across the country, the Times has effectively blurred –- perhaps “erased” is a better word –- the lines between hard news and opinion, regularly injecting political opinion into front-page news stories. (In fact, virtually everything is politicized, right down to the entertaining and fashion pages.) It’s as if liberal writers just can’t stand to simply report the news; they’re as addicted to their own spin as a junkie is to crack. If the facts aren’t on their side, as is so often the case, they can’t help but select the ones that will do their side as much good as possible and leave out the others, or else bury them in paragraph 37. Any good journalism teacher (are there any left?) could wear out a case of red pencils correcting the blatant examples of bias in their reporting.

And now, the members of the Times editorial board have taken their venture into advocacy journalism a step further: they’ve gone against their own social media guidelines, taking to Twitter to urge the Senate to reject the tax bill currently under consideration. They are literally working as activists, calling on their Twitter followers to get in touch with their senators and even including helpful contact information for their various offices. Isn’t that thoughtful?

Commentary continues below advertisement

It occurs to me that since newspapers are having such a terrible time budget-wise, they could make extra money doing this sort of thing full-time for the Democratic Party. What the heck, they’re doing it anyway –- why not just do more of it and charge a little fee? After all, pushing the liberal agenda is what they live for.

Of course, the DNC has its own fundraising woes right now, but it might be worth their while to pay the New York Times and other liberal rags what they can to advocate on their behalf. It would be a win-win for the Times and the Democratic Party, but the field of professional journalism is already losing big.



Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-5 of 5

  • tom jeffs

    12/12/2017 05:56 PM


  • John Donnelly

    12/04/2017 06:18 AM

    Could you please watch the video link below
    It's absolutely imperative that some advice is given to this president . Mueller is going for his throat especially with Flynn under inestimable pressure. Do what you think you possibly can do . I implore you . You have contacts .Our freedoms are at stake .
    We know we will be persecuted in these last days but that doesn't mean we cannot stand up and speak for truth . Soon we may not be allowed to speak ! That's what's at stake .


    John D

  • Linda Radosevich

    12/02/2017 03:44 PM

    I have lived all of my life in a small Western city with a college and one newspaper. The larger the college grew, the more 'liberal' the townspeople and newspaper became. Several years ago, I noticed that even in the news stories - NOT the editorials - words were used to slant a story, nine times out of ten to the liberal view. It was subtle. It carried a message. Now we read the local paper just for the obituaries and the comics (which are becoming political too!) I'll bet my high school journalism teacher is rolling in his grave...

  • Dawn Street

    12/02/2017 02:52 PM

    Well, lobbyists are paid very well. It means they can sell themselves to the highest bidder and then go into the politicians' offices not only as reporters and activists to shape opinion but they can bribe the politicians under the guise of lobbyists. Interesting. Americans as a whole, at least the conservative ones, have figured out the fake news they spew as truth. Do they actually we will accept them as lobbyists? Lobbyists are held in the same disdain and disgust as are lawyers, politicians and IRS!! It would be better for them to return to journalism and the merits and guidelines of unbiased reporting. They are supposed to simply answer these questions: Who, What, Where, When and How. And then they are done. The facts, simply tell us the facts!! Do not embellish it.

  • Stephen Russell

    12/01/2017 08:45 PM

    How many more papers will follow NYT example & do same? LA Times, WSJ, WP, NYFP, SF Chroncile, etc nationwide.