The New York Times recently said it would be limiting its reporters appearances on certain CNN and MSNBC political talk shows because they are "too partisan."
But if you are taking that as a sign that at least one media giant is learning from past mistakes and has dedicated itself to renewed objectivity, think again.
In fact, the New York Times is more a part of the disinformation and propaganda problem than ever before, according to the scrappy LexisNexis legwork done by a dude named Zach Goldberg and then posted on Twitter. He searched for every woke term he could think of — intersectionality, privilege, social justice, etc. — to determine how their prevalence has changed in the pages of the Times over the course of several decades.
One might think that after eight years of leftists complaining about faux oppressive theocracy from the likes of George W Bush, and then eight more years of hailing the conquering progressive hero Barack Obama, that woke news is far from new. And you'd be right. After all, that's why it's come to be known in the Trump era as "Fake News."
But that's actually where the story really begins. Because whatever you thought about the press being in the tank for the left until late in the Obama presidency and the onset of Trump as a viable presidential candidate, it has gone full Spinal Tap "ours goes up to 11" since then.
In a relentless Twitter thread, Goldberg lays out how the appearance of woke terms in New York Times stories had tripled, quadrupled and more in direct proportion to the time the press became obsessed with Donald Trump.
So whereas the primary tool of journalistic bias used to be its preference for simply ignoring the stories it didn't want to cover — a tool that remains in its arsenal to be sure — we are now firmly in the territory of an overt call to arms for soldiers of a specific cause.
It is no different than the horn used in Muslim lands as the call to prayer. It is religious language looking to stir up zealotry.
Which is why I've been telling you for some time now that where the press is concerned, we are no longer simply dealing with bias but malfeasance. We are dealing with the correspondence of a hostile foreign power that officially, without apology or equivocation, hates us.
Strangely, this honesty is perhaps the greatest gift, long term, that Trump has given his country. The fight is more out in the open than ever before because of how the press "can't stop, won't stop" concerning his mere existence. And perhaps not so coincidentally then, it has been during this time that the GOP went from ignoring the selling of frozen baby parts by Planned Parenthood, to passing some of the most aggressively pro-life legislation of my political lifetime in state after state.
A fundamental truism of life is the need to know thy enemy, and in the case of many an average American ensconced in various levels of comfort and malaise, it is the need to wake up to the fact that not only do you have them — but you have been surrounded for quite some time with phasers that are never set on stun.
The press was successful at keeping the nation in a "tolerance and diversity" fog for decades. But no more. Which is why the press has been forced to adjust accordingly. The New York Times is doing exactly what you'd expect of an entity that has carefully laid the groundwork of a cause for a very long time, but realizes that the age of subterfuge is largely at an end.
We are in the Endgame now.
Less partisan? No way. More cowbell? Indeed.
So here's the truth: The New York Times understands the need to do partisanship much better than it thinks Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow can on their clownish cable networks. The New York Times isn't trying to spare its personnel from being exposed as partisans on these shows/networks, as much as they are trying to avoid them being tainted by their amateur hour antics. At the New York Times, they're the professionals, don't you know.