Pretty much what we figured.

Namely, that the New York Times cherry-picks the news to fit the narrative....and when I started using that as a pejorative, I had no idea that it was a term of art at the NYT.

//Anyway, Ciely mentions these minimal mea culpas and then writes:

For starters, it's important to accept that the New York Times has always -- or at least for many decades -- been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: "What are you hearing? What have you got?"
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."//

Three days after the American people kicked the mainstream media in their nuts, and they haven't learned a thing.

Here is a picture of riot police in riot gear in front of the flames and violence of a riot....

...and NBC puts the word "riot" in "scare quotes" as if "riot" was just something that opponents of "riots" would say.

Wonder why the media is less trusted than a dose of the clap?

...because American values requires nuns to pay for abortion.

This is the most dogmatic and unintentionally funny thing I've read since the election.

The fact that Neal Gabler could write this after it has been conclusively demonstrated that the media was the party organ for Hillary, Inc. shows a remarkable ability to ...what's the phrase....ah, yes...."create their own facts, their own truth, their own reality":

//Retiring conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes complained that after years of bashing from the right wing, the mainstream media no longer could perform their function as reporters, observers, fact dispensers, and even truth tellers, and he said we needed them. Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth — the truth pulled inside out.

With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived. Like Nixon and Sarah Palin before him, Trump ran against the media, boomeranging off the public’s contempt for the press. He ran against what he regarded as media elitism and bias, and he ran on the idea that the press disdained working-class white America. Among the many now-widening divides in the country, this is a big one, the divide between the media and working-class whites, because it creates a Wild West of information – a media ecology in which nothing can be believed except what you already believe.

With the mainstream media so delegitimized — a delegitimization for which they bear a good deal of blame, not having had the courage to take on lies and expose false equivalencies — they have very little role to play going forward in our politics. I suspect most of them will surrender to Trumpism — if they were able to normalize Trump as a candidate, they will no doubt normalize him as president. Cable news may even welcome him as a continuous entertainment and ratings booster. And in any case, like Reagan, he is bulletproof. The media cannot touch him, even if they wanted to. Presumably, there will be some courageous guerillas in the mainstream press, a kind of Resistance, who will try to fact-check him. But there will be few of them, and they will be whistling in the wind. Trump, like all dictators, is his own truth.//

Corrupt Media/Rigged System

Remember how weird it was that George Stephanopoulis asked that off the wall question about contraception in the first debate in 2012...

...and how contraception turned into a major theme in the 2012 election.

Why, it was almost as if George was being used to set up the Obama run!!!

On an unrelated note, the journalist "moderator" in 2016 asked Clinton's campaign manager what questions he should ask Jeb.

The nice thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is never any bad news....

...and "bad news" means "doesn't fit the narrative of people needing government assistance and/or being nasty to minorities."

You know, stuff that would drive up the Democrat vote.

//Through it all, media coverage was so lacking that people living outside of the immediate area resorted to social media sites to updates themselves on what was happening in the area; using uploaded videos, pictures, and posts to piece together events and timelines, the pathways of the moving water, and how long the crisis would last. As cellular service failed, power went out across town after town, and families scrambled to find shelter, secure rescue, and just survive…news media coverage was virtually silent. A number of very good articles have been written about why, mostly speaking on the fact that the flood did not fit the narrative of entertainment the news media requires in order to garner coverage. The few articles that complain on the lack of national media coverage all have the same goal in mind… to get more media coverage on the event so that the scope of the tragedy can be known and help given to those people in need.

To accomplish this, they focus on the scope of the tragedy itself; as I resorted to earlier in this piece. In order to achieve the goal of coverage, those of us who care about the heartbreak in southeast Louisiana are forced to package it in those narrative frames of entertainment and historic loss in order to get anyone to care… and that to me is the larger tragedy. The tragedy is that strong, loving, cohesive communities, because of their strength and resilience, cannot be celebrated and assisted at the same time. That in order to be worthy of attention the very fabric of societal order has to have been sheered away; news media requires scenes that look like a zombie apocalypse, not scores of hometown heroes trying their best to rescue one another.

In these communities, families who lost everything feel guilty for letting someone give them money for a warm meal, because others have lost more. Neighbors organize care packages for people in the “devastated areas,” while floodwaters seep into their homes. Friends let friends of friends, and complete strangers off the street, sleep in their beds and on their couches because they have a place that is dry and some room to spare. People wait anxiously for the water to subside so that they can go and help their friends rebuild. Former high school classmates put up online lists of people to locate one another, connect with one another, and share supplies. The local fisherman run rescue missions through streets that have become rivers to rescue families stranded on rooftops and trapped on highways; forming a “Cajun Navy” of volunteers. And former residents travel from cities like Chicago and D.C., taking vacation days from work, to make sure longtime friends have someone there to help them remove the water-soaked sheetrock from their house.

No stories of looting, no stories of riots, no devolving of society to the lowest forms of humanity…instead a tragedy that has brought out the best in friends, family, and neighbors; people who help others before they help themselves…who see the assistance of others as an assistance of self.

Rather than reward that with aid and bringing the full force of our collective national attention to examples of what resilient and strong American communities look like when challenged…these communities are ignored and left to fend for themselves…simply because they can. The consequence of being a strong community is that your tragedy is not mentioned in national news, your strength uncelebrated, and your needs unmet unless they can be met through your own resilience. Humility and selflessly helping others does not fit the script of our news media… that is more of a tragedy than any flood.//

Compare and Contrast how the elite American media discounts facts that Catholic readers might be interested in.

I had noticed that the nuns were dropped from the stories I was reading. Subconsciously, I concluded that "well, I guess they weren't there."

//It could be as simple as this: Times editors may be convinced that their "urban," "liberal" or even "secular" readers don't want to read the religious details, especially since they would spotlight the role of religious convictions and identity in attacks of these kind. Editors at The Daily Mail may believe exactly the opposite, writing for very different readers.
Perhaps this is an issue of journalistic standards, with the Mail team being more comfortable quoting material from other sources, while the Times team wanted to stress its own reporting, mainly via political sources.
But what do you think Catholic readers are thinking, after reading these reports? What questions remain?
I can think of a few symbolic details. Was the priest literally killed in his liturgical vestments, the vestments in which he will be buried? Did he die trying to protect the Sacraments on the altar? Does his death make him, in the church's eyes, a martyr?
What damage was done to the church itself? Were there acts of iconoclasm? Did the attackers desecrate the altar with the priest's blood – an act that has taken place many times through the centuries – which would require (at least in Eastern church traditions) the church to be reconsecrated.
Would these kinds of details matter to many readers?
Just asking.//

If only leftist journalists could marry...

...maybe then they wouldn't cover-up for Democrat rapist politicians.

No..not Clinton.

Remember that crazy, paranoid insinuation that the media was deliberately not reporting on Muslim violence because of a politically correct conspiracy?

It's all true.

//A retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster has admitted his network and others take orders from the government on what — and what not — to report.

National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”.//