> The data makes it plain that the NYT has abandoned its commitment to nonpartisan reporting. When the internet threatened their business they made a devil’s ba

> The data makes it plain that the NYT has abandoned its commitment to nonpartisan reporting. When the internet threatened their business they made a devil’s bargain to amplify outrage and us-vs-them psychology. They abandoned any such commitment in 1946, when they introduced the still-active editorial rule [1] that: race should be cited only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. The race of a victim of a hate crime or the subject of a police search is clearly germane, an essential part of the person’s description. But the race of a person convicted of a crime is not pertinent unless the case has racial overtones; It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out in which cases race was pertinent. Reuters and AP have similar rules. [1] New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 2015 Edition, pg. 2183 http://1.droppdf.com/files/bp7ed/the-new-york-times-manual-of-style-and-usa-allan-m-siegal.pdf http://1.droppdf.com/files/bp7ed/the-new-york-times-manual-o...