Amid new revelations of bias by the New York Times against conservative viewpoints, publisher A.G. Sulzberger is alleging his paper is a victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Sulzberger complained in a statement to staff Sunday that the Times has been targeted by “a coordinated campaign by President Trump’s allies to attack hundreds of journalists in retaliation for coverage of the administration.”
That “objection is rich,” wrote Breitbart editor Joel Pollak, given that the Times “boosted an effort by left-wing activists to shut down conservative media solely for their journalists’ coverage of the left and their editorial support for President Donald Trump.”
Pollak noted that in January 2017, the Times published an op-ed by an author named Pagan Kennedy titled “How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News.”
“The Times is attempting to play the victim rather than applying the same standard toward hate speech in its own room that it applies to others,” the Breitbart editor wrote.
Pollak said that perhaps Sulzberger’s “most laughable claim” is that the Times‘ critics are “[u]nable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting.”
“This is a newspaper that chased the Russia collusion hoax for the better part of three years, and whose executive editor, Dean Baquet, recently described plans to build the next year of news around the idea that ‘racism and white supremacy’ are ‘the foundation of all of the systems in the country,'” Pollak noted.
Pollak was referring to a leaked report of Baquet informing reporters of a shift in focus in the Times’ coverage.
Earlier this month, the Times appeased critics of its coverage of President Trump’s comments about the Ohio and Texas shootings by changing a headline. The original “Trump urges unity vs. racism,” which cast the president in a positive light, became “Assailing hate but not guns.”
In January, WND reported former Times executive editor Jill Abramson charged her successor, Baquet, has made the paper’s news pages “unmistakably anti-Trump.”
“Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis,” she wrote.
She alleged that the “more ‘woke’ staff members,” the younger employees, “thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards.”