I think it's pathetic, but perhaps the right word is more deeply concerning. At least in a slippery-slope sense. Editorial boards are the face of a paper. For all intents and purposes, their opinion is the face of it. It just shows the depraved state of the integrity of journalism. Not that it is a new staple for US papers to endorse. Is it a staple elsewhere in the world?
IMO It's not about reporting the news as is- but showing down your propaganda. It's not like the New York Times hasn't been under plenty of scrutiny in this election cycle for the manner of their reporting.
That's not what is surprising to me. What is surprising to me is seemingly how okay and comfortable many people are with that.
Clapping your hands together for transparency is what I imagine 40+ million American Fox News readers say about their integrity. At the very least, if you're okay with this, you have no right to be to be appalled by the obvious bias by the right-wing media who engages in the same sort of arguments from the other side of the political spectrum.
It's the race to the bottom of trying to figure to figure out exactly what the correct events are.
Objectivity is impossible in practically. Human bias is natural, but that does not disclose that the paper should try and be as impartial as possible. I imagine that would be 101 for journalistic integrity.
Propaganda can be justified- and propaganda is not always bad. There are many times where the persuasion of ideas has had a just cause, but I think it's a bad sign to see this as a trait being defended in the news outlet.
I see this as a proxy that you'd have real reason to dismiss everything NYT if you were a right-wing voter. From the perspective of the right, NYTs obvious bias would be a road call to dismiss them in their entirety- and they do, which of course stiffles the continued secularization of everyone getting their news from two very polarizing camps reporting two parallel universe versions of every story. And that is unhealthy because both camps ends up getting a version of the story that is not portrayed in a fair light.
There is no doubt that it's not like NYT has treated Trump any worse than he deserves, but that's not really the point. I'm just talking about the generality of the news reporting. It's easy to allow yourself to bend the rules, but what when you have two candidates, or two situations where there is less difference in who is right and wrong. You're opening a can of worms and giving the outlet- the conduit of information a pass on being allowed to manipulate.
Intentional manipulation is different from reporting the news. it's not something I think should be encouraged, and while it is a tradition in American Journalism, i've always been uncomfortable with this manner of reporting. I think it gives less credence.
Just wondering why it didn't happen earlier.
