New York Times posts devastating headline for Dems: ‘No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out…’

(Donald Trump Facebook)

Has The New York Times finally acknowledged that modern “journalism” is oftentimes nothing but commentary — left-wing commentary, usually — disguised as objective analysis?

Probably not, though an attempt was certainly made.

Flashback to Monday, when the Times published a piece titled, “‘No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News.”

In the ostensible analysis piece, the paper lamented that the American people are tuning out political news because of their inability to discern what’s true and what’s false.

“In this volatile political moment, information, it would seem, has never been more crucial,” the piece read. “The country is in the midst of impeachment proceedings against a president for the third time in modern history. A high-stakes election is less than a year away.”

“But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.”

What’s unclear is what the Times defines as “news designed to deceive” and “partisan news.” The definition is highly pertinent, given as it can easily be argued that the left-wing paper has itself frequently shared “news designed to deceive” and “partisan news.”

Consider the report it ran Sunday in which its “reporters” and “journalists” accused FedEx of benefiting lavishly from President Donald Trump’s tax laws but then turning around and hoarding that money instead of investing it.

In a statement posted late Sunday, the multinational courier delivery services company claimed the Times’ report was fake news:

Why did the Times run the piece? Likely to argue that the president’s tax reform bill was nothing but a “windfall to corporations like FedEx is becoming clear.”

Fact-check: FALSE.

But why would the Times attempt to convey such a point in an ostensible report? Because of the left-wing bias that it boasts but has tried unsuccessfully for years to hide.

The bias shows in the stories the Times chooses to share (and ignore), the narratives it purposefully chooses to pursue and the editorialized headlines it invariably writes.

For example:

Of course, the Times didn’t talk about its own bias, partisanship and fake news in its report. Instead, it talked about the president:

“Then there are the politicians themselves, first among them Mr. Trump, who has helped create the confusion by asserting, over and over, things that numerous media fact-checkers say are not true,” the paper alleged.

But who fact-checks the fact-checkers, particularly when the so-called fact-checkers — including the “fact-checkers” at the Times — decide to fact-check a joke?

The Times even threw in a dictator/authoritarian leader reference, as usual.

“They spread this sense that people live in a world of endless conspiracy, and the truth is unknowable, and all that’s left in this confusing world is me,” Peter Pomerantsev, the author of “This is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality,” said to the paper about the world’s known dictators.

And then came the editorializing: “He was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian rulers. Mr. Trump, he said, has that style too.”

To be clear, the Times wasn’t wrong to address legitimate concerns about the public tuning out the news. Moreover, it deserves credit for citing some of the conservative perspective on the matter.

For instance, the paper spoke with Idaho computer programmer Russell Memory, a conservative who admits to being driven crazy by some of the president’s rhetoric and behavior, but who does appear to see eye-to-eye with him regarding the media.

“[H]e sees bias among liberal news outlets and that drives him crazy too,” the Times reported. “He was annoyed, for example, that stories of Mr. Trump being booed at the Washington Nationals baseball game were given top billing, but when Mr. Trump was cheered in Alabama a few days later, he could find almost nothing about it.”

FYI, BizPac Review, which openly identifies as a conservative news publisher, reported both.

“I don’t think things are fake, they’re just one-sided,” he said. “Both things happened. He got booed and he got cheered. But one of them will be a much bigger story. That’s what bothers me.”

The problem with the Times’ report is simply that, in covering the matter, the paper’s reporters abstained from casting any introspective scrutiny on themselves.

It’s as if they think everybody else is to blame but them. And well, sorry, but the facts strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly suggest otherwise.

Cases in point:

Fmr. NY Times boss admits paper has ‘unmistakably anti-Trump’ bias and it’s all about the money

Veteran journo Ted Koppel says Trump’s ‘not mistaken’ about widespread media bias

Tulsi Gabbard scoffs at CNN, NYT purporting to be ‘neutral arbiters,’ calls it ‘absurd’

NY Times hides ‘key facts’ in Kavanaugh hit piece, one ‘source’ an outspoken anti-Trump Dem politician


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles