A few months ago, it looked like the New York Times was committed to attacking Donald Trump and ensuring he didn’t stand a chance at becoming the next president of the United States. But as of late, the iconic news source has changed its tune and has began focusing on a new target: Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noticed the incessant number of negative Hillary articles, and as of Monday, he’s had enough.
Krugman penned a piece calling out media outlets for their tireless obsession with raking Hillary Clinton over the coals.
Krugman’s honest article likely comes as a slap-in-the-face to the New York Times, so much so that they aren’t even promoting the piece on social media, according to data journalist and Editor-in-Chief of FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver:
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 5, 2016
Krugman’s article closely compares this election to the 2000 election, which produced the nightmare known as George W. Bush. Now if you remember, along the campaign trail the media attempted to paint Bush as a straightforward and honest candidate, while smearing Al Gore’s reputation by portraying him as dishonest and unqualified.
‘Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest.’
Krugman continued, noting:
‘Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false.’
Krugman pointed out the fact that he fears what happened in 2000 is happening yet again,
‘right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again.’
Instead of upholding journalistic integrity at an institution as renowned as the New York Times, they’ve taken a biased approach to reporting for no other reason than to capitalize on the tired, played out rhetoric that “Hillary Clinton is in bed with Wall Street.”
Krugman even called out the Associated Press for their coverage of Clinton as well. Referencing the tone of the report, Krugman noted how biased the tone of the reporting by the Associated Press tends to be. The AP suggested that Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors during her tenure as Secretary of State somehow indicate “possible ethics challenges if elected president.”
Krugman concluded the article by urging journalists to report facts rather than innuendo, and also added a few tips for readers to ensure everyone uses a critical eye before digesting what can sometimes by media hogwash.
‘If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.’
Whether you support Clinton or not, the entire article takes a step back and urges readers to really open their eyes and be critical of the media they’re consuming. It doesn’t matter if you despise Clinton with every fiber of your being, Krugman’s article is a long overdue reminder that we must think for ourselves and be critical of the information we consume.
‘And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing.
‘In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.’
Feature Image via Getty Images.