EXPOSED: New York Times Quietly Runs Stunning Correction On Editorial Attacking Electoral College
New York Times Once Again Exposed As Being For Hillary
The New York Times has been caught yet again pushing propaganda for the Democratic party by their own admission.
The New York Times issued a major correction to a piece that they ran in December attacking the electoral college, admitting that the news paper has defended the electoral college when it was politically expedient for the Democrats.
From The Daily Caller:
The paper ran the editorial calling for an end to the electoral college in December, when Democrats were harping on the fact that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump in the popular vote, and calling for reforms to make the system more “fair.” Obviously seeking to avoid the editorial position as politically motivated, the editorial emphasized what turned out to be a false claim that the paper has opposed the electoral college system for 80 years…
…But the next day, the NYTimes ran a correction that went almost entirely unnoticed, stating the paper had in fact supported the electoral college when President George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election. “It failed to note an exception: in 2000, the board defended the college after the election of George W. Bush,” the correction reads, totally undermining the idea that its new opposition to the electoral college is not motivated by a distaste for Trump.
WikiLeaks Exposed That The NYT Was Working With The Clinton Campaign
There are numerous examples of the work that was going on between the NYT and the Clinton Campaign, whether it came from Carlos Slim or emails from people at the NYT to the Clinton campaign asking them to approve their articles before publication.
From The Observer:
…First, The New York Times changed the article’s headline, from: “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors,” to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.” The article also added two paragraphs criticizing Sanders, portraying him as unrealistic, a commonly-used Clinton campaign argument—especially as Sanders continues to be much more progressive than Clinton on a number of important issues…
…In the latest WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, several Times journalists are implicated in abandoning any semblance of objectivity to fulfill the agenda of the Clinton campaign. In July 2015, correspondent Mark Leibovich emailed the Clinton campaign a transcript of an interview he conducted with Clinton for them to proofread and edit as they saw fit.