3 ms·

I thought this admission/apology from NYT after the 2016 election was interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publ

I thought this admission/apology from NYT after the 2016 election was interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.

hopler 8y ago
It's been 2 years and they haven't changed yet.
masonic 8y ago
This is hilarious considering that the NYT's web section on the 2016 election results showed HRC as having over 50% of the popular vote from Tuesday night on. Only later was it qualified to say (paraphrased) as "uh, we meant percentage of the popular vote that went to HRC or Trump". But they had never, ever computed their masthead popular vote counts that way before, and they didn't qualify those limited counts until 11 days after the election.