Why No One Pays Any Attention To The New York Times Any More

I will be far from the first to note that the biggest loser of the recent election has to be the liberal media, led by its flagship outlet the New York Times.  The Times went all in for Hillary, sometimes running as many as four anti-Trump front page stories in a single issue.  

Before this election the term "bias" was commonly used to describe the political coverage of the Times and other liberal media, and some even continued to use that term this cycle; but this time, the word "bias" was not an accurate description of what was occurring at the Times.  The word "bias" would connote coverage that is somewhat slanted despite an effort at balance.  For the Times and many others in this cycle, it was not a question of mere slant, and there was no effort at balance.  The Times explicitly functioned as an arm of the Clinton campaign.  By the way, in my view they are completely entitled to do that if they want.  The problem was that their idea of how to maximize their help for Hillary was to combine smug and supercilious contempt for their opponent and his supporters with a completely fake pretense of objectivity.  Was anybody fooled?  Very few, I would think.  The overall effect of the Times's efforts was almost certainly to help Trump rather than hurt him.

Anyway, now that the election is over, don't expect them to have learned anything from the disaster.  (Isn't the fundamental characteristic of the progressive the complete inability to learn from experience?)  Almost certainly, the ham-handed one-sidedness of their coverage will only get worse as they struggle to deal with the reality of a Trump presidency.  Indeed, I already have my first good example.

In Friday's edition, the lead editorial has the headline "Denounce the Hate, Mr. Trump."   Supposedly the reason for the editorial is the outpouring of "bigotry and hatred" that the Times perceives as coming from Trump's supporters in the aftermath of the election:

[Y]ou [should] immediately and unequivocally repudiate the outpouring of racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic insults, threats and attacks being associated with your name.   

Funny, but I've been reading and viewing lots about riots and violence from Trump opponents, but I hadn't seen anything at all about this so-called "outpouring" of offensive conduct from Trump supporters.  So, New York Times, can you kindly provide us with at least an example or two of these post-election "racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic insults, threats and attacks" for which you claim Trump supporters bear responsibility?  They give two.  Here they are:

Explicit expressions of bigotry and hatred by Trump supporters . . .  have become even more intense since his election. On a department-store window in Philadelphia, vandals spray-painted “Sieg Heil 2016” and Mr. Trump’s name written with a swastika. In a Minnesota high-school bathroom, vandals scrawled the Trump campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and next to it, “Go back to Africa.”

But wait -- what is the evidence that either of these acts was committed by a Trump supporter?  The Times gives no evidence whatsoever.  Moreover, these are exactly the kind of acts that Trump's opponents have been engaging in throughout the campaign in the effort to discredit him.  The famous Project Veritas videos that came out during the campaign caught Democratic Party and Clinton campaign operatives at the highest levels planning and coordinating dirty tricks to make it appear falsely that Trumps supporters were racists and bigots.  I can't say I know who did either of the particular acts mentioned in the Times editorial; nor would I say that Trump had no racists or other bad people among his supporters.  But really, given what we know, what is the chance that these acts cited by the Times were done by a Trump opponent as opposed to a Trump supporter?  Anybody who has been following this would put those odds at somewhere around 98 or 99% that Trump opponents were responsible.  But in the total absence of any evidence, the Times would pin these acts on Trump supporters -- and in sneering terms that would seek to make being a Trump supporter morally unacceptable ("expressions of bigotry and hatred by Trump supporters").  Is it any wonder that Trump supporters of good faith look on the New York Times with revulsion?  

Meanwhile, several days after the election, while one guy seems to have put an offensive allegedly-pro-Trump message on a Philadelphia store window, and another guy the same in a Minnesota bathroom, tens of thousands of Trump opponents continue their violent riots in cities including Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, and even in New York City outside Trump's home.  As the riots have continued for days, there have been numerous reports of injuries, arrests, and extensive property damage, not to mention racist statements.  What does this editorial have to say about that?  It doesn't mention the subject.  Well, how about in the rest of this edition of the paper -- surely they have a news article or two about these widespread riots and the conduct of the rioters?  Actually, in this entire November 11 issue of the Times, there is not one single mention of these ongoing riots, whether in news, editorial, or even letters to the editor.  And how about the call to Hillary Clinton to denounce those rioting on her behalf?  Can't find that either.

Wow.  It's not just that we're getting fake and baseless accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc., from these guys.  It's that they systematically suppress any information that doesn't support their narrative of the moment.  You can't even find out from them what's going on out there in the world.  Is it any wonder that no one is paying attention any more?