Unbelievable.
(Not Really)
“The New York Times has begun re-enforcing a standing policy that forbids reporters and editors from appearing on cable news opinion programs deemed too partisan, a list that includes MSNBC’s “Rachel MaddowShow,” according to a Vanity Fair report.
The story includes an anecdote about the Times’s finance editor David Enrich being invited to appear on Maddow’s prime-time program earlier this month to discuss a report regarding President Trump, Jared Kushnerand allegedly suspect transactions involving Deutsche Bank before Trump took office.
After Enrich agreed to appear he was instructed to back out by his superiors.“The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow,” reads the report by Joe Pompeo, who went on say that a Maddow producer was “miffed about the cancellation,” according to sources.”
There is nothing partisan about telling the facts.
To paraphrase Harry Truman:
“I told the truth and they said it was partisan.”
Shame on you NY Times.
Well, when you’ve been doing the sort of pro-Trump spinning NY Times has done of late, the LAST place you want to show up is Rachel’s show. She’ll use the facts to make mincemeat out of your spin the way a blender goes through a rotten banana.
The trouble is, facts and reality ‘have a liberal bias’.
Or to put it another way,the Overton window has moved far too far to the right in the USA. The true center is actually on what is now perceived as the left in the USA, where it still is in most of the world.
So it will probably be okay for them to show up on mealy-mouthed Brian William’s show (sick of him still slamming Dem’s over the chicken affair), where it’s okay to do the bothsiderism and whataboutism schtick and bash Dems, like he does with Michael Schmidt and Jeremy Peters, but don’t dare go on Rachael or Lawrence’s shows where they would have their feet held to the fire. Schmidt and Peters don’t go on those shows now. Speaking of chicken . . . . . .
I’m surprised but I really shouldn’t be. As for Maddow being partisan unlike the NYT you’d be hard pressed to find a story she presented where she got her facts wrong. Or had to retract or modify. Facts, and truth are NOT partisan.
Maddow is a more polite and refined version of a special Democrat from our past. On his famous “whistle stop” train tour during the 1948 election someone from the crowed called out “Give em hell Harry!” His reply was “I just tell the truth on them and they THINK it’s hell!”
Seems to me lately like the NYT is doing it’s level best to fulfill Trump’s description of them as “The failing New York Times.”
Why the NY Times editorial staff suddenly feels the need to suck up to a guy who will never cut them any slack is beyond me.
Shameful. Going to ban the ny times. They are like trump. Dont like facts
What I gather from this is the NYT is afraid of truth.
Sad.
They’re more interested in access to Very Important People than they are in actual journalism and reporting. That makes them a very large, expensive tabloid.
Wonder if people will remember who they cozied up to when Trump goes away.
Who’d they cozy up to when Trump was on the outside looking in?
It’s a good question that I wish I had an equally good answer to, Wolf. All I know is what’s happening right now and frankly I don’t get it. Access journalism arguments aside, there’s nothing really to be gained over the long term for the NY Times on this.
Wouldn’t the ‘gain’ be money? short OR long term?
Doubtful in my view, Wolf. Short term, Trump’s been waging such a steady campaign against NYT that none of his followers would ever consider picking it up and most sane Republicans would put as much daylight between themselves and anything pro-Trump as possible. Long term, there’ll be a lot of pretending on how the folks who are currently singing Mr. Tangerine Man’s praises didn’t actually mean it. So no gain either way.
No more ” New York Times” for me …..We still have freedom of speech in this country don’t we ?
Fact is MSNBC and the NY Times both rely on FACT! Just because these facts are twisted by professional think tanks does not give you the right to deny the FACTS!
So only FAKE FOX news from now on?…
Well, this just confirms that Rachel & her ability to investigate and report on the truth is now an even more frightening proposition for the NYT who tired of being bashed by the crook in chief will not kowtow in an attempt to recover some readership. Rachel has gone a few more notches up for me (not that she needed them), and the NYT: SAD!
I don’t begrudge them for wanting to avoid a partisan appearance…and there’s no real harm if their reporters don’t show up to discuss their articles on Maddow. Rachel can discuss them all the same, we just miss out on what is usually an insightful conversation.
But regardless, I’d suggest this compromise…keep the ban, but for shows you can demonstrate have misconstrued articles from the Times. If you can’t show that Maddow has ever been factually incorrect (which I doubt they can), let them go on. If it’s Carlson…oh look…the fallacy list is a mile long, keep the ban.