ON THE NYT AND YELLOW JOURNALISM —‘FAKE NEWS”

It’s commonly claimed that we as a nation have lost our trust in main-stream media.  But it’s not Mr.Trump’s fault.  These corporate news entities have brought it on themselves.   The NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other major news outlets routinely manipulate the “news” these days for pecuniary advantage in a highly competitive  market in our highly politicized nation.  

Harking back to the late 19^th Century, when newspapers were our main source of information two major newspaper chains, owned by infamous publishers William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer vied for ascendency in the highly competitive market. These two magnate-publishers, determined to sell more copies than their competition engaged in what was termed “yellow journalism”.  The term characterized a form of journalism which—to gain market share—ignored ethics and descended into sensationalism. The practitioners of yellow jounalism operated by mixing news and opinion, used exaggeration, hyperbole, melodrama, and unfounded allegations, while ignoring pertinent facts and events that did not fit their preferred narrative—all to attract customers and seek copies. These papers—working for their “bottom line” were not functions for the good of the nation.  They are often credited with—in part— ginning up hatred for the Spanish and sentiment to support the Spanish American War.  Sound familiar?   Today, we are seeing a very similar trend toward a new form of yellow journalism, driven by profit motive, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and as equally bad for our nation’s well being.  Modern day practitioners are those listed above.  chief among them is the New York Times.  (President Trump calls this “fake news”) 

One glaring example of how the New YorkTimes practices this form of modern day  journalisme teinte jaune are its “news” reports corrupted by omission.   

The following two stories were published on the same day—one by The UK Daily Mail and the other by the NYT regarding a political rally in Georgia for Sen Elizabeth Warren—but give two radically different accounts of what occurred on that date and at that place. One makes a glaring omission of a newsworthy fact that clearly suggests an attempt to control the information the reader derives from the piece and a bias in reporting. 

The Daily Mail story is of a tense confrontation between Senator Elizabeth Warren-one of the three leading candidates for the Democrat nomination— and a group of black protesters who temporarily shut down her rally at an Atlanta black college.   The story was reported by Kyleann Caralle of the Daily Mail  November 21, 2019.  Caralle reported that Senator Warren was left shaken after dozens of protesters stormed her rally at Clark University’s Epps Gymnasium in Atlanta, interrupting her attempt to appeal to black voters. The protesters chanted  “we want to be heard” as they stamped their feet rhythmically on the gymnasium risers preventing Warren to speak. Sen Warren was forced to pause her speech and retire until Rep Ayanna Presley (D Ma) a black congresswoman and Warren supporter came to her aid, eventually quieting the crowd so that Warren could continue. That was news. 

But it was a completely different story as publishe by the NYT, on the same date —Nov 21 2019: The Times headline focused instead on what Senator Warren might have wanted publicized : “Elizabeth Warren makes pitch to black women in speech about racial inequality” (by A Herndon and T Kaplan ).  The reporters write that: one day after the 5^th Democrat debate, where Joe Biden continued to claim the support of black voters, Ms Warren who is Biden’s main competitor in many state polls took direct aim at Biden at Clark University —a black college in Atlanta— where she promoted the idea to a mostly black audience  that the government helped create the radial divide though state sponsored racism and that the government should fix it. 

The NYT authors made no mention at all of the violent protest and disruption in all of the 27 paragraphs of the column, or the fact that Warren’s speech at Clark University was halted by a group of black demonstrators who were only quited down after the intercession of  black Rep A Pressley (D Ma).  For the NYT this was not “news”.  

It seems to me that this was significant “news” that should have been reported.  It was certainly important.  But not to the NYT!   The roughing up of Warren may suggest that black support for Warren is very weak. That would make her potential for success In the election problematic or impossible.   Any Democrat candidate must garner a high percentage of the black vote to win.  Apparently these reporters did not want to report anything negative about Progressive candidates. Or perhaps that a major Democrat candidate was booed off the stage at a black college in Atlanta. 

Another news outlet reported that the protesters were black parents who support charter schools.  Warren opposes these “private” schools as a threat to the public school system (she needs union support).  Warren has claimed she sent her children to public schools,  as in several other matters —she lied about that. It was later revealed that this demonstration was against her misrepresentation about her own children and her stand against charter schools.  For the NYT this was not news.  

Why the omission?  Perhaps these “facts” did not fit into the pre-conceived story line  that the reporters (and the editor)  were in favor of?  Perhaps, their preferred narrative is  that Joe Biden is undeserving of the black support that polls have demonstrated he is favored with.  Or is it that —the opinion of these reporters and their editor is that they see Warren as the “more Progressive and more deserving” candidate for such support?  In any way —the news from the Times did not adequately or honestly tell the whole truth.  Furthermore, any reference about the protesters would have raised questions about Warren’s lies regarding her own children’s schooling.  

So please read or view your main stream media reports with a big Kosher grain of salt.  Much of it is sadly a modern form of yellow journalism—biased, exaggerated, manipulated to push forward an  agenda that appeals to the elite, coddled authors and ivory tower publishers. But the rest of us would like the truth the whole story  to be able to make our own minds up about issues.  That should be the primary function of the Fourth  Estate in a democracy —the facts.   We need an informed electorate—not a mind controlled electorate.  It is the latter which seems to be the goal of our present day corporate yellow tinged media.      

Let’s go back to rigidly separating news and opinion.  

 (After writing this I came across a great piece by Kyle Smith on media manipulation by disappearing news articles:  NY Post, Nov 20, 2019 “When the villain is Obama, not Trump news suddenly becomes not worth reporting” )