The moment at the NYT's townhall meeting when Dean Baquet realized the inmates now run the asylum.
Dean Baquet, editor of the NYT, basically admits here that 1) They intentionally engineered the Trump/Russia story to be the dominant theme of Trump's presidency 2) Their framing of the story for two years was proven embarrassingly wrong
In transcript, NYT editor Baquet says paper had to re-tool after Mueller failed to find collusion. Now shifting from Trump-Russia to Trump racism. 'The vision for coverage for the next two years do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?'
Unnamed staffer: "I am concerned that the Times is failing to rise to the challenge of a historical moment. What I have heard from top leadership is a conservative approach that I don’t think honors the Times’ powerful history of adversarial journalism."
Dean Baquet says that after the NY Times was caught "flat-footed" by the dramatic implosion of the Russia collusion hoax they peddled, the team must do a better job with their new narrative: that their political opponents, including Trump, are racist.
i got the full transcript from the new york times town hall on monday
Unnamed staffer at the New York Times: "I am often completely unaware of who is even writing the headlines for my stories. Why can’t I or one of the editors who actually worked on the story just write it?”
As I was reading this, the most hilarious aspect was probably how journalists at the NYT see themselves, i. e. as brave souls who do not hesitate to speak truth to power. It's really amazing how drunk they are on their own bullshit.
More from NYT town hall: 'I'm wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting.'
I updated my post after of came out with a transcript of that staff meeting at the New York Times where they wrestled with Trump coverage. Here is how my commentary ends now.
The executive editor of the NYT said he built his whole newsroom around the nonsensical Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and then had a long struggle session about where the paper goes from here. lol the national political media is just truly awful.
Transcript of New York Times in-house town hall. After Baquet opening remarks, first question: 'Could you explain your decision not to more regularly use the word 'racist' in reference to the president’s actions?'
NYT reporters obsessed with racism, want more condemnation and name-calling at the paper
More from NYT in-house town hall. Question on the straight, accurate headline--'Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism'--that set off staffers. How, oh how, could it have happened?
Unnamed staffer to Dean Baquet: "Could you explain your decision not to more regularly use the word racist in reference to the president’s actions?"
Lmao NYT is an actual insane asylum
I finally read the transcript of that staff meeting. Good questions from the staffers. But Does. Not. Get. It. Nor do the other editors. No self-awareness. Defensive. I guess not much is going to change.
The problem at the NYT is that it wants to deliver "both sides" without cultivating any capacity for its most powerful people to be meaningfully questioned. The leaked town hall with the NYT's executive editor, particularly this exchange, says it all
More than he meant to say? He describes the array of semantically challenged euphemisms for racism that the two lead WH reporters, in particular, regularly resort to as "more powerful." Obviously false. Maybe "for the powerful"? Sound is very close. … …
🚨Leaked transcript of meeting. Staffer: I’m wondering to what extent you think racism &white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting? Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point”
At in-house town hall, NYT editor says, in effect, we were totally set up to cover Trump-Russia from here on out. That's how it was for two years. Then came the Mueller report. Now, 'We're a little tiny bit flat-footed.'
Damning: admits built newsroom not to cover news, but to promote one story, and now pivoting new one. Not journalists, but racism-prisim propagandists: intend to revise history, inflame readers, divide country, all to get power. Ugly and vile.
Leaked transcript of NYTimes emergency meeting over HeadlineGate. Staffer: “To me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism & sort of how we’re thinking about racism &white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.”👇
A Times staffer: "A headline like that simply amplifies without critique the desired narrative of the most powerful figure in the country. If the Times’ mission is now to take at face value and simply repeat the claims of the powerful, that’s news to me."
Dean Baquet, executive editor of the , on the conclusion of the Mueller investigation and how people reacted to it:
Unnamed staffer to Dean Baquet: "One of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this—or some things that the New York Times reports on— is because they care so much... They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors."
The debate over whether the New York Times should say "racist" will go down as a bizarre footnote in the history of the Age of Trump. Something for the anthropologists of the future to puzzle over.
Nameless Times staffer: "Wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know?"
The New York Times Unites vs. Twitter by In a transcript of the newspaper’s town-hall meeting, executive editor Dean Baquet grapples with a restive staff and outside scrutiny. Unfortunately, I published my new post before I knew about this.
This transcript is worth reading, if for nothing else than to sit slack-jawed in amazement as you have the EIC of the Times defending the paper against staffers who think the Times is too conservative and too sympathetic to Trump (!!!!!)
This transcript of the staff meeting, with exec editor Dean Baquet angling to retain at least some part of the paper's reputation for impartiality and restraint, is really something. ( of course sides with the Team Social Justice demands.)
‘The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Trump got emboldened politically. I think that the story changed.’
“You know, someone did a study of Twitter shares that showed that 70 percent of all stories shared on Twitter were never opened." Based on some comments in my feed, that is absolutely correct. I guess 750 words is above some people's pay grade. Sad!
Very interesting, good for them. But I‘d really like to see the examples of what the standards editor means by “headlines that many of us have been concerned about or asked to have changed...where we were showing what could be read as bias against Trump.”
The transcript of Dean Baquet's meeting with the NYT staff. What a strange mix of journalists grappling with journalistic problems and advocates of a particular view of America wanting the NYT to be its spearhead.
Up next: on the transcript