The Washington Post and the NY Times are not sources of “truth” per se, Readers need to be more sophisticated, Understand “old media” agenda

Indeed it does. Which is why we are running this article.


The attached article is an extremely thoughtful examination of what constitutes “fake news.”

In many respects NPR (for example) is great. It occasionally does good reporting. However there is a vast area of the news NPR refuses to cover. There are large swathes of American society which are of no interest to the producers at National Public Radio. The same can be said for all of the “old media.” It can also be said of Fox News to a large extent. (But the two are not equivalent. The “old media” still enjoy more collective power than the lonesome Fox News.)

We at AC2 News are anti-crony capitalism. We are explicitly so. As such this also means that we are often very critical of government which is the catalyst and enabler of crony capitalism. But we make our perspective very clear from the outset.

The Washington Post and the New York Times on the other hand seriously sell themselves as paragons of objective truth. This is sadly hilarious because both the New York Times and The Washington Post have spent the past 40 years undermining the concept of truth as objective.

You know another publication that claimed to be the “truth?” The Soviet Union’s Pravda. (Literally translated as “truth.”)

(From Merion West)

Journalism may be biased, but it probably has been biased in some way or another for as long as it has existed. So how does mere bias justify the new moniker of ‘fake news’? Evidence suggests that at the same time that mainstream sources like The New York Times have literally framed themselves as objective authorities, their bias has increased to new heights. According to a nationally representative survey conducted by Indiana University scholars Lars Willnat, David Weaver, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, the ratio of Democrat journalists to Republican journalists remained at approximately 2:1 from 1982 to 2002, but jumped to 4:1 by 2013. (The reader will notice that this large change cannot be attributed to a special repulsion to Donald Trump.)

Wishful believers in journalistic ideals may want to claim that reporters can remain impartial despite the rising ideological imbalance in their own ranks. But according to Gallup polls, the American public would disagree. In approximately the same timeframe that the already-high Democrat to Republican journalist ratio doubled, so did the ratio of Democrat to Republican approval of news accuracy. In 2017, proportionally four times more Democrats than Republicans thought that “news organizations get the facts straight.” When the question was last asked in 1998, 2000, and 2003, the Democrat-to-Republican news accuracy approval ratio was approximately 2:1. So the true metanarrative of news is that it has always been biased and that it is getting remarkably more biased. If that is the true metanarrative, then The New York Times’ “truth” brand is the fake metanarrative.

Click here for the article.