If I believed that what MSNBC broadcasts was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and if I believed the New York Times was honorable in its journalistic ethics then I would absolutely despise Republicans and everything they stand for. There is very little ethical difference in the fourth estate ethics between outright lies and lies by omission. The paper is particularly guilty of the latter. The New York Times does more than claim to be the newspaper of record; it is the newspaper of record. As such it has a responsibility greater than any other to record all the news and report it accurately. It has failed this responsibility miserably.
In his final column, Arthur Brisbane, who very recently resigned his post as Public Editor wrote mostly about the papers steady financial demise which he blamed entirely on the rise of new media, namely twitter. There was nary a word about the effect that content may have had on readership. Brisbane acknowledged,
The Times’s “believability rating” had dropped drastically among Republicans compared with Democrats, and was an almost-perfect mirror opposite of Fox News’s rating. Can that be good?
Is this statement not bias itself? Nonetheless, Brisbane is acknowledging that the paper’s perceived integrity trending downward and he does not hesitate to use the word “drastically” while inferring that an integrity rating equivalent to FOX Is bad. Then Brisbane confirmed what has become very obvious.
Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
The Times is bias. Brisbane is jut reporting it.