WASHINGTON, November 17, 2016 — Though rare, ever since the New York Times issued its muddled (and likely insincere) apology to its readers for failing to grasp the real story behind the “shocking” triumph of a Republican also-ran named Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential campaign, other newspapers here and there have issued similar mea culpas, some even including a vow to commit genuine acts of journalism in the months and years ahead.
There’s good reason to doubt their sincerity, however. The Times’ so-called “conservative” voice, David Brooks, has continued with his relentlessly negative smearing of Trump, and there’s no sign that paper even remotely comprehends the subscription-sapping error of its ways. The editors will likely continue their anti-Trump, anti-Republican vendetta, claiming this time that it’s good old-fashioned investigative reporting.
The problem is, if the Times and other dying dead-tree rags had actually done their jobs, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would have been vetted out of their party’s primaries and Americans would never have had to face such an array of dismal choices as they’ve seen pretty much since the turn of this century.
Nonetheless, it’s still amusing to see paper after paper vow to mend its hyper-partisan, hyper-left ways going forward. We should duly note all such vows and revisit them, say, at the end of 2017 or 2018 to see whether these early New Years’ Resolutions ever took hold in the hearts and minds of the legion of Democrat operatives with bylines that call themselves journalists.
Writing for Lifezette, Jim Stinson investigates the sincerity of a Florida newspaper that’s allegedly making an attempt to build bridges to that state’s own basket of Deplorables: