NY Times Rejects Criticism of Bias Against Dems

The New York Times is hitting back after a report argued mainstream media gave evidence recently unsealed in the Jan. 6 indictments critical of former President Donald Trump less attention than it did Hillary Clinton’s email server in 2016, Semafor reported.

The report was compiled by Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group.

“The former president continues to benefit from news outlets grading him on a massive curve, resulting in relatively muted coverage for his nakedly authoritarian, unfathomably racist, and allegedly criminal behavior,” MMFA’s Matt Gertz said.

Gertz said major U.S. newspapers ran “26 combined articles mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smith’s filing.”

The Times argued the October indictment was “so heavily redacted that it didn’t reveal a great deal of new information beyond what was already reported.”

“This extensive coverage amounted to more than 2,600 online and print articles, visual investigations, audio and other multimedia journalism discounted by MMFA’s report,” the Times said in a statement to Semafor. “For comparison, The Times published 300 news and opinion articles about Hillary Clinton’s server and emails since 2015. This includes coverage following former FBI director James Comey’s letter to Congress in the days leading up to the 2016 election, a breaking news story that evolved in a more compressed time frame.”

The newspaper said Media Matters should’ve broadened its focus past its print edition.

“MMFA’s focus on print stories specifically shows a lack of understanding of digital news delivery and the prominence stories receive online,” the Times said in a statement. “The Times’s audience overwhelmingly engages with our digital report, including newsletters, alerts and social media programming, where these stories were given heavy prominence.”

Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, dismissed the Times’ critique to Semafor.

“If print or front pages don’t matter, then how come at major moments the NYT itself promotes images of their front page?” Carusone said. “We look at front pages and print because it’s a way of teasing out and gleaning insight into editorial decision making and priorities. What gets printed says a lot. They know this. But instead of engaging with our point, they suggest we’re stupid? Come on.”