Former editor says New York Times has lost its credibility because of anti-Trump bias

Rate this post

In July 2018, New York Times’ editorial board actually called on Democrats to go to war against President Trump using mafia Godfather tactics.

Now, former NYT editor Jill Abramson — the paper’s first female executive editor — says the NYT has a financial incentive to bash Trump, which is eroding the paper’s credibility.

Howard Kurtz reports for Fox News, Jan. 2, 2019, that in a soon-to-be published book, Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts, Abramson points to a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions to the NYT during President Trump’s first six months in office jump by 600,000 to more than 2 million. Abramson writes:

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.

The former NYT editor (2011-2014) has some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. Abramson writes that “Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump.” Abramson believes the same is true of the Washington Post: “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

Citing legendary 20th century publisher Adolph Ochs, Abramson writes that “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

Abramson attributes to the New York Times‘ anti-Trump bias also to a generational split at the newspaper, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. She writes: “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards.”

See also:


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

13 responses to “Former editor says New York Times has lost its credibility because of anti-Trump bias

  1. Of course she’s 100% correct — too bad more mainstream media people do not have the integrity to admit the same about them and the outlets they work for.

    I have never seen a President treated the way Trump is treated by the media: constantly denigrated, and in a very mean-spirited way — after some time this naturally has an effect: you get the feeling that Trump has little moral or even presidential authority due to how the media constantly trashes him — no president can really be a president in that kind of environment.

    • Since it is so obvious what they’re doing why isn’t the question asked, “who DO you work for?”. I have never seen anything like it either. I am a proponent of free speech and I think this crosses the line into slander and sedition.

      If it were me we wouldn’t be seeing it because I would have caused them to stop or be shut down by now. It isn’t enough to ignore them. Whole cable channels devoted to Trump-bashing are insane. Why would anyone even watch that?

      • Lophatt . . . . I agree completely with you. I think that what is going on today with the media does indeed “cross the line into slander and sedition.” No doubt about it.

    • eah, Yes, he has proven he can do it in that environment. I’d like to say that in spite of the fact our President has been and continues to be maligned by so many, even “his own party” the man is smart, and no matter what is said he comes right back with a better one, he’s fast, and believe me they fear him. He is an avalanche no one can contain, he is respected though they don’t want to admit it, Nasty Nancy and stubborn Chucky know they are at a loss with him, time will tell, and the WALL IS A SURE THING.

  2. There’s a reason they are called the New York Slimes…


    The only news I get is from online media like Fellowship Of The Minds, Whatfinger News, etc. I stopped listening to and reading MSM just after 11/6/16 and haven’t looked back…

    The United States Marine Corp
    Semper Fi And OoooRah my Brother Marines and all Veterans
    Vietnam 68-69, 3/9 3rd Mar Div
    aka: Hardtimes

    • Interesting how easily they dismiss the charges as simply a “bad apple”. I’ll bet there’s a peck of other “apples” in there too.

  4. There were years when I wrote/researched and in bibliographies, it was acceptable to cite The NY Times as solely “TIMES” underlined. Pretty sure I would NOT do this today. They’ve devolved into a rumor rag/political rag instead of a neutral, “reporter’s standard of foremost authority” that was, in the past, taken almost as a primary source. This means, in the past, you did not have to defend or question the NY Times…..and today….you can’t EVEN quote them and therefore, rarely consult or cite them in support of any scholarly research/bibliography. Pretty soon, to make ends meet, their last resort will be a half sheet fold in the grocery store check out line. Well-earned.

    • Aced out by Wikipedia now… and Wikipedia isn’t acceptable for academic papers as “too easy” today.

  5. Daily Fishwrap… now digital!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.