Former NY Times executive editor: Sure, the Times’ reporting is anti-Trump

Former NY Times executive editor: Sure, the Times’ reporting is anti-Trump. By Paul Mirengoff.

Jill Abramson is a former executive editor of the New York Times. … It sacked her in 2014. …

Now, Abramson has written a book in which she says the Times’ news pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.” … According to this report by Howard Kurtz, Abramson “invoke[s] Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the ‘opposition party.’” …

Abramson says the extent of the bias expressed by Times reporters in their work correlates with age:

Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” she writes.

Abramson hasn’t worked at the Times since Trump burst on the political scene, so I assume she’s basing this account on second-hand information and/or inference. However, it has the ring of truth — indeed, obvious truth.

Outlets like the Times have slanted the news in favor of liberalism for decades. But the new generation of journalists, as a group, is more unabashedly partisan than its predecessors. It makes less pretense of objectivity.

The Times’ anti-Trump bias has been good for business, according to Abramson:

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated.”