NYT OFF RAILS ON LIES, VOTER FRAUD

LIES, UNTRUTHS AND MEDIA BIAS ON VOTER FRAUD

THE GREAT GRAY LADY HAS FALLEN TO THE LEVEL OF THE DAILY NEWS

They inappropriately use the word "lie".

They prefer to ignore evidence which supports Trump's assertion of voter fraud.

The great gray lady of NY (the Times) once the arbiter and paragon of journalistic excellence, good judgement and refined taste has come down a peg since the days I worked in the "Clippings Morgue" where (before digitization and the internet) each day's paper were literally cut and sliced up into individual articles. Devoted "morgue" staff neatly folded, sorted and cross referenced each article before they were catalogued and stored away in rows upon rows of worn and smoke stained wood catalogue drawers. It was interesting work. I got to read a good part of the Times each day, and I met many of the famous columnists of the day as they filed down into the basement of the Times Building to research their stories.

A recent NYT editorial calls the President a "liar" regarding his claim that there may have been voter fraud in the last election which cost Mr. Trump the popular vote. The possibility does seem remote. Mrs. Clinton took the popular vote with about 2.8 million votes. However, there are several studies which do indicate that voter fraud is possible and may have occurred. The existence of these reports SHOULD abrogate the Times' "liar" epithet. In fact some have claimed that as many as 800,000 votes were cast by illegal immigrants. (See Washington Times, R. Scarborough, 1-26-17 "Trump argument bolstered:Clinton could have relieved 800,000 votes from non-citizens.). This assertion is based on Prof. Jesse Richman's work at Old Dominion University, Va which is based on the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. The CCE document is compiled every two years by a consortium of 28 universities which produces a detailed report on voters and their views. Tucked deep inside the lengthy questionnaire is a query on citizen status. A significant number of respondents indicated (anonymously) that they were not citizens when they voted. Richman and his co authors used that information to calculate by extrapolation that in 2008 their data supported the contention that in 2008 an estimated low of 38,000 to a high of 2.8 million non-citizens cast votes illegally. The numbers would be different in 2016.

It is no secret that Democrats have encouraged non-citizens to vote, since they assume that these illegal voters will more likely support them--the Democrats. It is also clear that they dragged their feet on legislation which would get control of our porous southern border. Sanctuary Cities and the Democrats ensconced in mayoralties in those urban areas are openly supported by illegal immigrants. Then there are the statements of President Obama made as he addressed a group of "Dreamers" in which he asserted that since the ballot is secret that there is no way for investigators to find and punish illegal immigrant voters. His statement was interpreted as giving a green light to illegals to vote. Furthermore, the hacked emails of John Podesta published by Wikileaks reveal a message from him directing illegal immigrants to vote. Podesta directed these individuals to get a drivers license and using that document claim citizen status at a polling place.

You will not read such information in The NY Times. Ignoring such evidence suggests their reporting is biased.

In recent times, since the election of 2016, I have wondered what "old timers" at the Times like the late William Safire (who besides his political op ed piece also wrote a column entitled: "On Language" which I avidly read ) would think of the Times' present state of journalistic "excellence". . I am pretty sure I know what he would have thought of Mr. Trump----but would he have called him a "liar"? I think not. He most certainly knew precisely what that word meant and would have had a much wider and more varied and accurate lexicon to call on. Today's NYT is not up to Saffire's standards.

I am fully aware that the gang on the Editorial Page are "out to get" Trump. But should they do it so blatantly and in a manner which drags down the journalistic level of their paper to that of NY Daily News and Inquirer standards?

Let's look at their word usage. They call the President liar. "Lie" implies that the person so impugned made an untrue statement to intentionally mislead or deceive. The "liar" purposely with intention made an untrue statement from which he or she would gain in some manner. The key part of that phrase is "intention". Did Mr. Trump have the intention to deceive? That is of course possible. It is also possible that he actually believes, as do others, that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers. But can the Times editors actually claim that he lied? Not likely! Aren't they exactly in the same boat as Mr. Trump? He is claiming something he can not prove (about voter fraud) and the Times editors are doing exactly the same in claiming they know his personal intentions. They can not prove Mr. Trump's intentions.

They should not use "lie".