All errors should be reported to

Saturday, December 09, 2017

NYT shows how lightweight the media is

"It seems incredible that only five out of 150 front-page articles that The New York Times ran over the last, most critical months of the election, attempted to compare the candidate’s policies, while only 10 described the policies of either candidate in any detail."
-- Columbia Journalism Review

Now what is this nonsense about how important and vital the press is?

The most upscale and elite newspaper in America devoted most of its front-page coverage of the presidential race to gossip, smears, and gaffes.

Only five times in two months (maybe longer) did the New York Times bother to compare President Trump's policy proposals to Hillary's.

From the Columbia Journalism Review:
Of the 150 front-page articles that discussed the campaign in some way, we classified slightly over half (80) as Campaign Miscellaneous. Slightly over a third (54) were Personal/Scandal, with 29 focused on Trump and 25 on Clinton.
Finally, just over 10 percent (16) of articles discussed Policy, of which six had no details, four provided details on Trump’s policy only, one on Clinton’s policy only, and five made some comparison between the two candidates’ policies. 
The results for the full corpus were similar: Of the 1,433 articles that mentioned Trump or Clinton, 291 were devoted to scandals or other personal matters while only 70 mentioned policy, and of these only 60 mentioned any details of either candidate’s positions. 
In other words, comparing the two datasets, the number of Personal/Scandal stories for every Policy story ranged from 3.4 (for front-page stories) to 4.2. Further restricting to Policy stories that contained some detail about at least one candidate’s positions, these ratios rise to 5.5 and 4.85, respectively.
It was an ideas election.

The press tried to make it about personalities.

And the third-rate coverage continues.

Consider this story from the New York Times:
Congressional Democrats Left Out of White House Hanukkah Party

239 members of the House and the Senate were barred from celebrating Hanukkah at the White House.

Paragraph Eleven:
This year, officials slashed the size of the annual reception, inviting around 300 guests to one soiree instead of hosting 1,700 over two parties as in the past.
Misleading does not begin to describe this Fake News.

It's all Fake News.

America deserves a better press than this.


Please enjoy my two books about the press and how it missed the rise of Donald Trump.

The first was "Trump the Press," which covered his nomination.

The second was "Trump the Establishment," which covered his election.

To order autographed copies, write

Friend me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

As always, Make America Great Again.


  1. The NYT has fallen, and CAN'T get up (from the gutter). Boo. Hoo. Hoo. (Lie down with Democrats; get up with fleas.)

  2. Everything is about personalities today.

    I saw it in business the past 25 years. What is right is not right unless someone popular says it's right. Everything they say and is is right. Visa versa on people one doesn't like. Critical thinking is gone. Everyone wants to join the group that they think will get them ahead.

  3. Well, Scott Adams would probably say that policy doesn't win elections.

  4. Does the fake news media ever say that people on the left voted because of 'rage'?

  5. IIRC, that NYT front page didn't last long; I remember seeing it with a double-decker headline about how people were troubled by his win. Howie Kurtz held it up on "Mediabuzz" the following weekend.

  6. Thanks to the Internet, today there are more sources of the real news behind the fake news than ever. Because of people like Don, our Big D, i know I am better informed than I ever was.

  7. I apologize if this is a bit off topic, but this WaPo article was published two years ago today on 9 Dec. 2017.

    ‘I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.’

    Ginsberg: When I sit down with your rival campaigns, they all go through their strategy, gaming out how they think they’ll win. But they never mention you. 

    Trump: They never mention me? 

    Ginsberg: They never mention you. I ask, “What about Donald Trump?” Their answer to that is, “He’ll go away.” That’s all they say. 

    Trump: Are they still saying that? 

    Ginsberg: I say, “Okay, how do you know that?” And they say, “He’s just going to go away.”

  8. America deserves a better press. New York is getting what they want. But the NYT should no longer be called the paper of record. They lost that title long ago.

  9. Personality is far more interesting than "ideas", more profitable by far. Last night before Trump's rally all the preliminary talking heads were keeping viewers close by holding out the possibility he might go off teleprompter and be "himself", ie say something"outrageous" they could riff off of themselves.
    Trump is himself the riveting entertainer politics has lacked since Bill Clinton. He has made the legacy Media rich. The smothering boredom of HC would have crippled them badly and they know it. He saved them all.
    Yes the election was about ideas but it was the Messengers for those ideas upon whom it turned. The NYT understood this. Their instinct for survival is strong which is why they are still around after 130 years. Unfortunately, I might add.

  10. “It was an ideas election. The press tried to make it about personalities”

    How unfortunate for the press. The Democrat candidate HAD no personality.

  11. Today's New York Times: "Inside Trump’s Hour-by-Hour Battle for Self-Preservation" by Maggie Haberman.

    Oh really? He's in a bunker fighting for his administration's very survival, with his enemies closing in for the kill?

    This kind of headline must be titillating for the typical Manhattan liberal, but for crying out loud, how on earth can you call this journalism? It's propaganda of the first order.

    Go jump in lake, Maggie.

    1. Maggie is giving her readers hope. They are desperate for anything.
      Could Maggie be a party to keeping 'them' hoping while providing cover for the President? Just a thought.