The New York Times – a liberal-elitist rag that abandoned all traces of journalism years ago – is now hemorrhaging subscribers. It seems, by its own admission, that it misread the mood in America throughout the entire 18 months of campaigning for the US presidential elections. That’s really some achievement … if it was true. But, of course, it isn’t. It didn’t misread the nation’s mood; it was completely oblivious to it. Which begs the question: if The NYT can misread the pulse of its home country so perfectly, why would anyone believe it has any idea about what’s going on 8,500 air miles and 13 time zones away in the Philippines? Well, nobody would – apart from The NYT and its core supporters of course.
But that hasn’t stopped this floundering publication from pontificating about the ‘dreadful’ course the country is being taken on by its leader, President Rodrigo Duterte, its No.1 head of state target – at least until last week when New Yorker, Donald Trump, was handed a four-year tenancy agreement for the White House with a roll-over clause for a further four years.
This is a propaganda rag of the Left-elite, by the Left-elite, for the Left-elite. And up until Trump’s landslide victory – we’ll explain that phrase in a minute – it virtually made no pretence about it. This is a publication that proclaimed it had “a duty” to stop Trump. But when all that blew up in its face and it was left looking like a peevish child that hadn’t got its own way, when Hillary Clinton, the woman it fawned after like a doe-eyed love-struck teenager, and when subscribers stopped renewing their subscriptions, something very new entered The NYT’s upper editorial floor. Reality.
Donald Trump is on track to win 306 electoral-college votes, against Clinton’s 232 and that’s what propelled him to the presidency. In his wake he trawled in 239 Republicans to the House of Representatives (against 193 for the Dems) and 51 to the Senate (against 48) – giving the Republican Party (GOP) control of both houses of Congress and its biggest parliamentary victory in more than a decade. On top of that, the GOP won three more governorships taking their total to 34 (15 for the Dems). That’s the historic landslide to which we refer – despite Clinton edging ahead in the popular vote which is an irrelevance under the US electoral system, though the Left only recognises that fact if it’s a Democratic Party candidate in Trump’s position.
The NYT’s crusade to stop Trump wasn’t journalism, it was unapologetic news manipulation. Now it’s getting hit in the wallet as subscriptions drain away. And suddenly it’s going to sit up and take notice of what its lost readers are thinking and feeling? Of course not. It’s never going to go after its Democratic Party paymasters; its Left-elite Wall Street friends, nor its pampered celebrity liberal friends in Hollywood. We’d write that last story for them – free of charge – but it’s not ready to go that far. It might soften its stance a little in an effort to regain some credibility with the public, but fearless journalism – well, that’s going a bit too far.
Times publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr promised to “rededicate ourselves to the fundamentals of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear of favor”. He continued: “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team”. BUT “we cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of the subscribers”.
Let’s translate that simply… The NYT will continue to be partisan, as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, and pursue the same gutter journalism tactics for which it’s known. Its hallmark bias and lack of verification will remain. BUT it’s running out of readers and money so continue to fund it so it can deliver more of the same.
Humble pie is not something the Left does well; its adherents have a predisposition to be sore losers. It’s in their DNA. Less than magnanimous in victory they’re bitter in defeat. They sulk, they cry, they break things as the post-Trump victory shows. The NYT embodies other ugly characteristics of the Left-elite. It’s a bully. It goes after what it sees as soft targets – like Duterte and like Trump until it became apparent that his mandate far outweighed its own. This bully was given a smack in the mouth by the people it treated as ignorant; the ones that defied its call to “stop Trump” – the people who Clinton described as “a basket of deplorables [sic],” for which, of course, The NYT never took her to task.
It’s a coward. Like some sycophantic Dickensian clerk it seeks to make a chameleon shift in pretence of change, to scramble its survival. None of these are endearing qualities. There’s no journalistic integrity, not even lip service to the principles of the Fourth Estate. The NYT is 100° proof, high-octane, no-frills propaganda. It is to journalism what blasphemy is to faith. It is, to coin a term, a “journaganda”.
But The NYT is not alone. This Left-elite media cult which has dragged the profession of journalism through the mud and made it despised across the planet is dying on its own two Left feet. The wretched celebrity columnists have been shown up for the vapid, self-serving charlatans they are – the reporters and broadcasters who have built lucrative careers by injecting their biases and prejudices into their coverage, creating personality cults around themselves with their haughty dismissal of countries and leaders and wars and politicians and everything else that their Left-empowered mission deems destruction worthy.
The Guardian newspaper in the UK, a beacon of the Left, is in deep financial trouble. Readership has dwindled as debts continue to mount. Now it’s begging for donations to keep it afloat. Pleading its case it says: “We are entering a period of great political and economic uncertainty and The Guardian’s role in producing fast, well-sourced, calm, accessible and intelligent journalism is more important than ever. If everyone chipped in, our future would be secure… These are perilous times for progressive politics, and at moments like these the world needs The Guardian more than ever”. And, “Support our journalism for just $69/€49 a year”. (The translation of Sulzberger’s statement, above, equally conveys the true meaning here).
Like The NYT, The Guardian went after Duterte and Trump, perceiving them to be soft targets and like everywhere else in the progressive Left, it didn’t give a tinker’s cuss for the ordinary people – you know, the one’s that don’t have a brain to think for themselves; the ones they need to edify; I mean how would these ill-educated wretches understand the finer nuances of societal balancing? What could they possibly understand about deprivation and exclusion? That, after all, is the Left’s preserve.
Oddly, ironically, if the scribes and talking heads of the Left had gone after Mar Roxas instead of Duterte and Clinton instead of Trump, we’d now probably see Roxas in Malacañang and Clinton on her way to the White House. That’s how little faith the swamp of journalism now commands. The latest survey from Pew Research shows that just 6% of the US public has any real trust in the mainstream media and we’re fairly sure it won’t be much higher in the Philippines.
Thankfully, finally, these harlots of journalism are being unmasked and are becoming redundant as the audiences turn in their multitudes to social media – not perfect by any stretch; but certainly less toxically hypocritical than the establishment. And, at least, there’s room there for everyone’s view. The Volatilian™ encourages it on this site. Whether you agree or disagree with what we write you are welcome to make your feelings known. No judgement.
But the companies who promote their goods and services on the back of all this – keeping this wretched machine well lubricated with their greasy ad dollars – are as tarnished as the hacks and their paymasters who drive it. Here too, though, there’s evidence of an exodus. In fact, newspapers and broadcast networks who retreated to the Internet to cut costs and salvage their audiences are becoming increasingly worried. So much so that former news rivals are teaming up to try and rescue online-advertising dollars that have been drawn to social media.
Earlier in the year, The Guardian, CNN International, the Financial Times, Reuters and The Economist formed an advertising alliance to compete with the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn for online revenue. These rival media organisations have been forced to join forces and pool readership numbers to have any chance of tapping into e-advertising streams. In other words, they’re in survival mode. Poetically – and probably prophetically – they’ve named their joint enterprise, Pangaea. That was the name of the southern continent that fragmented and disappeared 175 years ago; though that’s probably not the image they intended to convey.
Prognosis. The mainstream Left-elitist media is becoming the author of its own extinction and it’s hard to see – given it apparent inability or lack of will to evolve to anything approaching credible journalism – how it can pull itself back from the brink. Money won’t save it, choose what it believes; ethics might. But that doesn’t mean babbling their precious house codes; it means applying the spirit of them. And for many of them, given the depth of the political dye, that could be too big a task.