NY Times: We're Not Biased, We...Um...Just Didn't Have the Staff

The NY Post absolutely eviscerates the NY Times failure to report the Van Jones affair.

As we watch the NY Times shares turn to junk bond status, among many other major dailies, and as we likewise watch CNN's ratings plummet, we are told by those in the industry that answer lies in structural economics. It couldn't actually be, well, the content. (No word on the reason for the astronomical rise of Fox News in the ratings.)

The answer to the demise of much of legacy media lies in that NY Post story. It's not so much the fact that the Times refused to cover the story, as was its right as a private organization, but the completely dishonest explanation that they were just "short staffed." The Post took great delight in drawing out the Times bogus explanation by pointing to some of the trivial stories the Times miraculously had resources for - beyond shooting fish in a barrel, it was a literary curb stomping.

The Times, like many others, have long since left the news business: reporting just the facts, "all the news that's fit to print", and have entered the advocacy business. The problem is they still portray themselves as impartial purveyors of fact. It could be that they do so because their worldview has rendered them simply incapable of self censure. A more insidious reason is that they're using the guise of impartiality to appear more authoritative as they advocate in favour of the "correct" world view.

Whether the bias is latent or blatant, expect more logical gymnastic contortions as the Times and others continue to attempt to deny the obvious.
/