Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president’s alleged racism.
“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”
Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday.
In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”
But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election. “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”
Baquet used the gentlest terms possible — “the story changed” — but the fact is, the conspiracy-coordination allegation the Times had devoted itself to pursuing turned out to be false. Beyond that, Democrats on Capitol Hill struggled to press an obstruction case against the president. The Trump-Russia hole came up dry.
Now, Baquet continued, “I think that we’ve got to change.” The Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”
“I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?” Baquet said. “How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”
The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”
“I think one of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this … is because they care so much,” one staffer said to Baquet. “And they depend on the New York Times. They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors and getting through, because they need that right now. It’s a very scary time.”
Baquet vowed a transition to a new “vision” for the paper for the next two years. “How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about?” he said to the staffer. “How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”
The headline controversy, it appears, was a preview of a new 2019-2020 New York Times. If Baquet follows through, the paper will spend the next two years, which just happens to be the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. (Baquet added, almost as an afterthought, that the Times will “continu[e] to cover his policies.”)…..
What are “policies”? Is that another name for a propaganda campaign? Who is this mysterious “public” that clamors to be endlessly lectured in the NYT’s boundlessly hypocritical morality course? Whatever happened to epstein’s blackmail intelligence operation or ukraine’s “democratic” coup or libya’s freedom bombing or CIA asset Saddam’s WMD’s or the 9/11 false flag or the CIA’s cocaine running or the decades of US orchestrated death squads and torture regimes in latin america or the CIA’s installation of khomeini in iran after their OTHER bloodthirsty puppet was overthrown or the CIA’s opium running or the decades of research and practical application of trauma-based mind control against kidnapped or rented children or ….
The idea that racism has anything to do with the MSM’s treatment of trump is ludicrous. What any thoughtful intelligent person (generally those who don’t read the NYT or its allies) ought to be asking is: what is the real reason for their hatred of Trump and why are they so reluctant to come out and say it?
People don’t get into positions of power, networks of power brokers do. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/10/the-obvious-problem-with-secret-societies/ Trump represents one of those networks. I don’t have a crystal ball but my best guess is that the main disagreement between Trump’s power base and the NYT’s power base (aside from the pedophilia/blackmail plague) is the issue of nationalism vs globalism. When you look past the platitudes and hype of globalism what you find is that its objectives and the strategies needed to attain them are genocidal, practically omnicidal.
The networks of elites which exercise power through national governments will never willingly give up their power to a supranational “authority” such as the UN. It’s not in their network programming, of which the prime directive is self-perpetuation, like any other self-assembled, organically emergent, collectively autocatalytic hierarchy. Even if all the government bureaucrats were clones of mother theresa and sufficiently starry-eyed to believe the utopian BS about a benevolent global government, there is simply no orderly way for a politically embedded hierarchy to implement self-destruction, it must be killed. And the only way to kill it is to remove its material underpinnings, i.e. the economic flows which sustain it. This is what the shock doctrine is all about: economic demolition in order to bring about regime change.
This strategy will result in mass starvation and poverty in the USA, making the Great Ripoff of the 1930’s pale in comparison. We’re practically there already, given the decades of bipartisan gutting of our industrial infrastructure to china’s benefit. At this point the reserve status of the dollar is the last critical prop holding up what remains of the US standard of living, and it’s only at the mercy of the central banking cabal. The notion that this astonishing multi-decade process of national subjugation was a result of random forces or a “free market” is simply not credible. Any “self” interested government would have put a stop to it years ago. In that respect, the USA is already a vassal of the global financial aristocracy. The only reason this is not a matter of public record is that the mirage of self governance embedded in the culture is still a potent political force. The velvet glove will remain on the mailed fist until it is no longer needed.
Obviously it takes a lot of bribery and blackmail to get large numbers of people on board such an agenda. This is why I believe the NYT’s faction is far more saturated with compromised elitists and luciferians than the Trump faction. Trump has his own financial machine and isn’t as dependent on the kindness of the central bankers. But by the same token, the establishment’s machine is much more powerful, which is reflected in the size and scope of the orwellian propaganda apparatus arrayed against Trump.
Under globalism, soldiers and national arsenals will be replaced with police and medicalized social control. The battlefields where different national elites act out their collective delusions and corruption against each other will be moved into the final frontier of imperial domination: the human mind itself. Regional sovereign governments, empowered and controlled to some degree by regional public consent and regional economies, will become colonial outposts of Earth, Inc. Human aspirations, reproduction and child-nurturing communities will be submerged in the administrative expediencies of the planetary hive. The puppeted carrots of national fiat currencies will finally evaporate into an electronic grid of individualized AI-driven economic control. National borders will be meaningless because there will be no place to hide, as dissident and economically redundant floods of refugees will ebb and flow from one colonial outpost to another before being rounded up for disposal by their poverty-driven fellow peasants in uniform, before they themselves meet their own ultimate fate. And all for the ultimate benefit of the same invisible luciferian hierarchy which placed the blame for its own orchestrated world wars on the existence of the nation-state. The ultimate false flag.
Trump has warts. He’s an oligarch (with a lower-case “o”). He’s abrasive and impulsive. He’s naive about real history. He combs his hair (or whatever it is) the wrong way. But he’s a nationalist and given the alternative, that’s good enough for me.