New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. vowed to "rededicate" his newspaper to "report America and the world honestly" after the paper was completely wrong with their election predictions — when they said Democrat Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide over businessman Donald Trump.
Of course, the Times was massively wrong and businessman Trump is now "President-elect Trump."
In a letter written to the Times' readership, Sulzberger thanked readers for their loyalty to the Times while reflecting how his newsroom could have made such horrible predictions.
In addition, Sulzberger address claims that the Times had become a highly-partisan newspaper during the election, favoring Clinton.
The complete letter read:
To our readers,
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?
As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.
We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin, a former reporter for the Times, criticized the Times and their agenda-driven reporting in a column Friday.
"Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting," Goodwin wrote. "And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory."
"Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something," he added. "And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."
Sulzberger's letter came after the Times' public editor, Liz Spayd, criticized the publication for clearly favoring Clinton over Trump. According to Spayd, the newspaper often times made Clinton appear organized and statesman-like, while making Trump and his campaign appear disorderly and confused.
In the future, Spayd suggested that Times reporters and editors ask mainstream Americans their perspectives instead of crafting elaborate think-piece narratives to push an agenda.
"[A]s The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers," she wrote Wednesday.
(H/T: Fox News)