A.G. Sulzberger takes to the pages of the Washington Post to insist that when the Times is asked to practice journalism, it is actually being asked to practice electioneering. That’s now become the go-to dodge for the corporate media when it comes to parrying evidence of their flagrantly permissive coverage of Trump.
By way of explaining that he does really, really understand how ominous is Trump’s praise of Viktor Orban, Sulzberger resorts to a familiar rationalization for why his paper treats Trump’s panegyrics as effluvia.
Sulzberger: “I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.”
Jamison Foser in his newsletter zeroes in on the hustle that Sulzberger is plying: “That’s a straw man Sulzberger invents because he does not dare engage our actual argument, which is that the Times is not neutral, and does not even define the term correctly, and the paper often deploys double standards and false equivalencies that benefit Trump and the Republican Party.”
Remember, this is the publisher of the New York Times talking, and that would be the newspaper that directly aided Trump’s victory in 2016 by its absurdly over-credulous, grotesquely disproportionate and always prominently placed coverage of the Hillary Clinton non scandal.
And we will never forget what the Times did to Joe Biden in service to its protectionism toward Trump.