The New York Times has decided to take its monitoring in a new way then that President Donald Trump is up in business.
” One way in which this presidency is different from its father is that President Trump himself is far more accessible to investigators than was President Joe Biden, who often took questions or did sit-down discussions”, The Times explains in a lengthy article written by various reporters this year. It answers inquiries from users about how The Times is reporting separately on the Trump administration.
Obviously, Trump-era monitoring is such a withdrawal from regular reporting that it requires an explanation:” Mr. Trump, of training, presents a unique set of challenges, starting with the need to fact-check nearly everyone he says”.
The assumption is that the extremely truth-stretching Biden didn’t have fact-checking, but Trump does, so now The New York Times is going to launch fact-checking, for true.
An old news notion says,” If your family says she loves you, check it out”. It means every point an exit studies should be confirmed separately. They used to say this in publications.
But The Times has a longer history of no properly point checking when the goal is an opposition of Democrats. It makes repercussions, hints, quotes unknown sources, and often uses false documents like the Steele document that prompted the rejected Trump-Russia scandal.  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,
The Times did carefully “fact test” Biden a few times, but staged its showing to make him look like a nice old man of the people. In” Biden, Storyteller in Chief, Spins Yarns That Often Unravel“, Michael D. Shear and Linda Qiu write,” For more than four decades, Mr. Biden has embraced storytelling as a way of connecting with his audience… But Mr. Biden’s folksiness can veer into folklore, with dates that don’t quite add up and details that are exaggerated or wrong, the factual edges shaved off to make them more powerful for audiences”.
Isn’t that lovely? Biden wasn’t lying, he was connecting with an market.
Similar article, two paragraphs eventually:” Former President Donald J. Trump lied frequently, not only about trivial details ( like insisting it hadn’t rained during his inauguration when it plainly had ) but also about consequential moments — misleading about the pandemic, perpetrating the’ big lie’ that Mr. Biden stole the 2020 election…” The story basically about Biden’s lying habit became a vehicle for more Trump-bashing, one of The New York Times ‘ favorite postures.
Based on this year’s explanation, the Times is eager to start “fact checking” suddenly after a four-year break while Democrats controlled the White House.  ,  ,
” Since the poll we have brought on fresh writers and reporters who give us more capacity. They include an expanded regiment of White House writers and a fresh investigative team focused on how President Trump ( and Elon Musk ) are upending the federal government and driving policy in fresh information”, the report says.
Note the word choice, “upending”. It builds that subtle negative tone The Times loves to use on Trump. They paint Trump’s actions as if he is doing something wrong, when he is actually delivering on campaign promises most people voted for.
” This White House makes news almost constantly, seven days a week”, The Times complains. Most Americans want a working president. Biden mostly vacationed and gave other people’s money away. The Times says it has “enough reporters and editors to keep track of it all”.
The Times says its coverage of Trump will be different from that of his last term. This time the Times will have” the discipline not to treat everything he says and does as inherently newsworthy”.  , In other words, the Times will decide what you need to hear through its propaganda filter.
The reader questions in this article are a fascinating study of who reads the Gray Lady.
” Will The Times be censoring its work to avoid lawsuits and/or imprisonment of their journalists”? a reader asks. Last time we checked, it was the Biden Department of Justice that was unjustly throwing people in prison, and before that the Obama administration spying on journalists.
The brave New York Times is prepared, and assures this reader,” We will not be intimidated in this climate and will continue to do what our readers most rely on us for — report, without fear or favor”. There is another negative nugget:” this climate” implies Trump has brought about a sinister new climate change. Again, NYT, most Americans voted for this change. Check those facts.  ,
Here are a few more unhinged Times reader questions.
” Do reporters have a plan if Trump changes press briefings to limit sharing info on what he’s doing? Are the Times folks picked to ask questions as much as other big papers that are Trump fans”?
” Please find a way to isolate Trump news to its own category or page so us subscribers don’t have to be exposed as much as he would like”.
” How do journalists handle death threats, and how often have they received them for specifically writing about Trump”?
It’s great that The Times says it is bringing back “fact checking”, but it would be more impressive if it would just report the truth, without the digs and hollow analysis. Maybe then its readers would not be so afraid.
Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.
