O'Keefe exposes the New York Times
The video nearby from investigaitve journalist James O'Keefe is the latest in a series of examinations of the New York Times and its intentional political biases. While conservatives have known for decades that the Times holds them in contempt, the O'Keefe videos show how deep the contempt goes. In the most recent story, learn a great deal form Times homepage editor Des Shoe:
When confronted with the notion that during the election, The Times' front page, for which she is responsible, was completely focused around Trump. She tells the undercover journalist that NYT reporters tried to influence the election with their reporting:
"I think one of the things that maybe journalists were thinking about is like...Oh, if we write about him, about how insanely crazy he is and how ludicrous his policies are, then maybe people will read it and be like, oh wow, we shouldn't vote for him."
She admits that the New York Times has a clearly defined liberal-leaning bias: "The New York Times is not...I mean, it's widely understood to be liberal-leaning. But, American newspapers are not supposed to claim a bias, they're supposed to be objective."
"So the...ahh, but the New York Times is not left?" the Project Veritas journalist asked. Shoe clarified, "I'm not saying that they're not. I'm saying it's widely, widely understood to be left-leaning."
She also tells the undercover journalist that reporting objectively is simply too difficult for the Times: "Our main stories are supposed to be objective. It's very difficult in this day and age to do that."
Part of the Times' growing bias, according to Shoe, is driven by the demand for clicks on stories. The more clicks, the more revenue. One way to generate clicks? Give the readers what they crave, rather than what the facts of a particular story dictate.
We get that news outlets of all sorts are facing enormous pressures to drive traffic to their web sites. But when the need for clicks counts for more than objectivity, that's a problem. But as Shoe also says, fact checking and balance take time, and money. News organizations have less of both in a world that moves at the speed of the internet.
The result is a press that no longer cares about taking sides, even when doing so produces "news" that isn't fit to print.