Another All Time Low for the New York Times
When has anybody ever heard of a major newspaper changing it's headline after it's been printed to please a political constituency? Well the New York Times just did it. The Times changed it's print edition headline after certain liberal democrats complained about it.
The original headline read “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM." It was the title of a story about the President's response to the shootings in El Paso, Texas.
After complaints from at least 4 democratic Presidential candidates and in particular, one former bartender, who said "Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by and often relies upon the cowardice of mainstream institutions", t he Times timidly changed their headline:
A sad commentary on a once great newspaper of long, long ago, which became a farce.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
I guess the Times better be careful about quoting the President accurately or even allowing him to look like a human being. It's grotesque!
Although I'm unable to open your url for the changed headline, it really doesn't matter because The New York Times has devolved into a useless ultra-biased mind-damaging piece of shit news-twisting libelous rag. Anyone who takes seriously that garbage-spreader is a complete fool.
Aha! The url just opened for me. What a perfect example of an anti-Trump headline.
No doubt who's calling the shots there.
The good thing about this getting exposed is it helps get rid of any last pretense that the Times is an objective newspaper.
Democrats running for President in 2020 got their way with the NYTimes. Big surprise.
And then, with apparently zero irony or self-awareness, and lacking the stones or integrity to stand behind their own headline, they allowed themselves to be bullied into changing it. Wow. Now that's "cowardice."
The New York Times, like the vast majority of mainstream media, has spent four years trying to make Donald Trump into an acceptable human being. It's not working.
When it’s obvious that the media is going out of its way to cast him in the worst possible light, it drives moderates to sympathize with him. Leftist media shoots itself in the foot again.
A headline that reads "Trump Urges Unity" is an insult to everyones intelligence. The NYT simply corrected its earlier mistake.
Factual reporting doesn’t care about your feelings.
When has Trump actually promoted unity? Get serious.
The nation has to stop pretending this (the Trump presidency) is all ok.
It's in the NY Times story.
"one voice" and "our nation" sounds like promoting unity, unless you really badly don't want to hear it. If you have a problem with those words, I'd say you're the one who needs to get on board the unity train.
Theres also this:
Did you disagree with that sentiment?
They literally went back and rewrote the headline for the purpose of changing the readers' perception of Trump. At least try to acknowledge the facts.
Vic,
Since this is a very serious charge, I would like to know how do we know this is true? There are no links and no verifiable source.
Thanks for any clarification.
By The New York Times
A print headline on Tuesday’s front page for an article about President Trump’s statement addressing last weekend’s mass shootings has added to a continuing debate over how news organizations cover his administration.
Times editors were concerned that the initial headline — “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” — did not contextualize Mr. Trump’s message on Monday and decided to change it for later editions to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.”
Many readers, including Democratic politicians and other critics of the president, condemned the first headline on Twitter.
“Headlines like this ignore all the context of #Trump’s actions and past remarks, make him suddenly look presidential,” Jerry Lanson, a professor emeritus of journalism at Emerson College, tweeted . “The Times should know better.”
We asked Matt Purdy, a deputy managing editor, to address the criticism and offer insight into our editorial process:
We needed to deliver a nuanced message in a very small space under tight deadlines, and unfortunately, our first attempt at that did not hit it right.
When a group of top editors received an email with the first edition of the front page last night, we saw the headline, realized that it was not a good one and decided to change it. It’s not uncommon for our masthead editors to adjust headlines as we go.
As this conversation was happening among Times editors, readers began discussing the initial headline on Twitter. They rightly pointed out that the initial headline didn’t reflect the story accurately.
We are very proud of the great work our reporters and editors have done on last weekend’s mass shootings, and on Mr. Trump and race. But we agree that headlines are extremely important, and in this case, we should have done better.
This is an important conversation, and we welcome our readers’ continued input in the comments.
They changed the headline for later editions. I really dont think its that unusual.
John,
Where did you get that quote from the times. Please provide an addy.
The Democrat Party Times! Or the AOC Times!
I think they saw how ludicrous the first headline was and were embarrassed.
After complaints from at least 4 democratic Presidential candidates and in particular, one former bartender, who said "Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by and often relies upon the cowardice of mainstream institutions", the Times timidly changed their headline
Yup - them poor "candidates" got their little feelings hurt over how "LUDICROUS" the headlines were - even the make believe congressional person, the former bartender.
You must be thrilled John - right up your alley.
No, the Times should not - and does not need to - "know better." It's not the job of the newspaper to manage Trump's reputation. They should not be concerned about making him "look presidential." When he does act presidential, they should be willing to report the fact without reservation or equivocation.
If the Times wanted to make a comment 'bout Trump, there is a section is their paper called "Editorial" and that's where their opinions should be placed. Running the second headline is/was nothing more than placation and, very unfortunately, politically motivated - a "No-no" in journalism.
I have a little difficulty believing this institution would be dictated by politicians who felt the head line was too
UNBELIEVABLE, the first time around, as it is inaccurate when applied to Trump, the second headline, who really cares, unless Vic has some tangible proof.
.
The NeW York Times is a trash publicated News Source, all while Trump paid off the tabloid illegal alien baby snatching from parental units theory...actually FACT, and the Ted Cruz papa helped assasinnate a former president commentary.
WTF is going on in our twisted universe ?
Next, someone is going to tell me Trump said Putin is behind our screwed up 2016 election...
You are on the right track of course. In the first headline the NYT was trying to give Trump a fig leaf, throw him a life jacket, or however you want to put it.
Reality set in when people actually saw that nonsense in print. Trump has a history of inciting violence. That cannot be reversed by him reading robotically off a teleprompter.
FFS, let's try and be real everyone.
Would you like USA Today? :
Or The Washington Examiner? :
Or The Wrap? :
Or PJMedia? :
Or The Washington Times? :
Or Town Hall? :
How about that? It's hard to find on MSNBC or CNN or the Washington Post.
“After Trump delivered an address in the aftermath of the deadly shootings, in which he condemned racism and white supremacy, the newspaper planned a front-page story with the headline, “Trump urges unity vs. racism.” Amid a storm of criticism on social media, including from top Democratic presidential candidates, the newspaper later altered it to the more critical: “Assailing hate but not guns.”
All we have to do is listen to what the President has said about these tragedies and what the left is saying and it is easy to see who the dividers are.
By the way, let's get real
“Headlines like this ignore all the context of #Trump ’s actions and past remarks, make him suddenly look presidential, ” Jerry Lanson, a professor emeritus of journalism at Emerson College, tweeted . “The Times should know better.”
In other words the Times should know better than to write an actual objective headline, therefore the democrat party pressure to replace it with a subjective one.
"Trump Urges Unity" is an oxymoron.
A real oxymoron would be liberals love America.
I took note of the secondary front page article wherein the headline did not change in a later issue. It's good news for me, because my income that comes in Canadian dollars (which are tied to the American dollar) and American dollars now convert to more Yuan giving me an increase in my usable income here.
The Times made the change after getting slammed by high-profile Democrats including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and 2020 hopefuls Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Ocasio-Cortez, who has feuded with Trump as well as leadership in her own party, retweeted an image of the original story while essentially accusing the Times of helping white supremacy.
“Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions,” she said.
"Um, that's actually not how it's supposed to work "bro." It's supposed to be an objective newspaper that covers the news, not one that writes headlines to cater to the ideological predilections of it's subscribers"....Marc Thiessen