New York Times reminds us why we don't trust the press

Jack Hellner  "We sat through eight years of Hurricane Barry abusing his power and not giving a damn about the law or the separation of powers, while most of the media cheered him on. We were even treated to stories of how the Obama/Biden years were scandal-free.

"The media so liked Obama they colluded with other Democrats to protect the corrupt Hillary Clinton, his designated successor, from prosecution in order to elect her president. They used a clearly fictitious dossier as they sought to destroy Trump before and after the election.

"The NYT executive editor is proud of the fake news stories on Russian collusion that they won Pulitzers for. (Isn’t that great that journalists get awards for excellence for false stories?)  Now that the public knows that it was always a fake story they now will seek to divide the country on race. In other words, there will be more attempts to mislead the public instead of report truthful news.

"We can look forward to more false stories about Trump and Charlottesvile, the false 'hands up don’t shoot narrative,' the false stories trying to take out white Christian boys, endlessly ginning up racial hate with the term “white privilege” and calling Trump a racist for enforcing the immigration laws Congress passed as the Constitution and his oath requires. But in the meantime, we are getting this:

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet told the assemblage. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”  . . . 

Have Pollsters Learned Nothing since the Last Election?  While the moniker “fake news” is typically reserved for cable news and some of the more prominent newspapers in America, the term could also be applied to presidential polls. How many pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election by a landslide up to and including the day of the actual election?

The “paper of record,” the New York Times, told readers on election day, Nov. 8, 2016, that Hillary Clinton had an 85 percent chance of winning the election. Their prediction was updated on 10:20 PM ET, oblivious to the evening smiles on cable news shows that were curdling into frowns and outright hysteria.

Screen shot from the New York Times web site on Nov. 8, 2016 // Fair Use