New York Times Executive Editor fired - had denied gun coverage "ideological"

[lasbrg]

Shortly after defending herself against "liberal bias", the managing editor of the New York Times for the last three years was "unceremoniously" fired yesterday. I think this is could be a great weapon against the national media by pointing out their ridiculous bias against gun rights. Make all these newspaper editors fear for their jobs.

From the earlier interview:

Here’s What New York Times Editor Has to Say About Covering Gun Control

New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson asserted that the newspaper’s coverage was balanced – singling out coverage of the debate over gun control.

“I think that the news pages are not ideological; opinion is the province of our editorial and op-ed pages and the opinion section of our website,” Abramson said during an interview with Marlo Thomas.

...

Except, as the article points out, this is far from the truth:

Newsbusters, in evaluating the post-Newtown coverage, said “The Times tipped its hand when it said the outlook was ‘bleak’ for gun control legislation, as if the preferred outcome would likely be thwarted.”

More recently, the MRC cited a New York Times op-ed headlined, “When May I Shoot a Student?” by Greg Hampikian, professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University. It was in response to a new Idaho law that allowed college students to carry guns on college campuses.

Accuracy in Media was even harsher: NY Times Executive Editor Denies Gun Control Bias—Says News Coverage Isn’t “Ideological” [Video]

It’s not just some readers that think the Times is liberal. Former public editors Daniel Okrent and Clark Hoyt admitted in their final columns that the paper is essentially a “liberal rag.”

...

The problem is that every time there is a mass shooting, the Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media, uses it as a clarion call for more gun control, as if that would eliminate further violence—something they must know isn’t true.

Abramson can deny the Times’ bias on guns and other issues, but the evidence isn’t in her favor.

I read the New York Times quite a bit and they regularly use every single gun grabber cliche and talking point in their news articles: "loopholes", "gun violence", "assault rifles", "NRA influence", you name it. This firing pleases me no end.

[Warrior King]

I helped get a biased article pulled from the NY Times online ed. after the Colorado theater shooting.

The Times articles was reporting on the amount of ammo the shooter had at his residence which amounted to a couple of cases of surplus ammo and stated that the guy had a mini arsenal in his residence and asked why anyone would need hundred of rounds of ammo unless they were up to no good, and it should be illegal etc.

I stated that the writer obviously knew nothing about guns or the habits of Americans who own guns. I stated that active target shooters buy and consume on reg basis large amounts of ammo and buy ammo in bulk because its cheaper and it not unusual to have a parcel service delver 500 rounds to ones door step. I wrote the article was not objective, ridiculous and could not have been based on actual reporting and research.

Right after I posted my comment the entire article was pulled from the NYTimes online with no explanation.

Former Editor Abramson was extremely biased on this issue. Objectivity went out the window on her watch. Reporters and writers knew they could get away with murder in terms of biased unprofessional reporting and they did. She is an embarrassment to her profession.

[lasbrg]

^ Good job Warrior King!

[Baja Daze]

Hopefully the NY Times will eventually fold, file BK and be no more! They are simply a progressive propaganda tool and I am sure their last bit of truly objective journalism predates my existence here on earth.

Whenever a libtard laments the loss of yet another progressive propaganda paper, I simply reply that it's actually good, because of ALL the trees we will be saving with the paper no longer publishing!

[jrock]

If not mistaken, She was also apt at getting equal pay. ..
Ah the hypocrisy!

[speedrrracer]

You people are living in a fantasy land if you think her firing had anything to do with the NY Times anti-2A stance.

[SuperSet]

It had nothing to do with 2A and their bias won't change with the next editor.

[coma13]

Correlation ≠ Causation

[lasbrg]

Correlation ≠ Causation

Good point. I was trying to not to cross this line.

You people are living in a fantasy land if you think her firing had anything to do with the NY Times anti-2A stance.

That's what interesting - they didn't say why they fired her. That is, they couldn't admit to the "real reason" they fired her. This is a big deal because they had to endure the appearance it was based on equal pay; a huge embarrassment for a liberal newspaper. In fact, they came out specifically to deny this, but they still didn't say what was the actual reason or reasons.

Also, three weeks ago, she does an interview where she herself brings up the New York Times gun coverage as an example of unbiased coverage. Of course we all know that this such a huge, and ridiculous, lie that not even liberals can believe it. So then why does she say this? Why further damage your credibility - unless you have very good reasons. Like say, your job was on the line??? This is not obvious cause and effect, true, but the timing of events is interesting.

It had nothing to do with 2A and their bias won't change with the next editor.

Do we know that? Remember, the New York Times was sold by the Jewish family that ran it since the 1800s and is now owned by Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim. Who knows what he thinks. If we know anything, it's that Jill Abramson hated guns, all her employees knew it and that, probably, she was an overbearing boss. Her writers knew that they were always safe if they had a gun grabber slant to their articles. With her dumped the way she was, my bet is that everyone in the newsroom will be especially careful not to favor any particularly side of any issue. That is, there WILL be change and that the New York Times will be less the "liberal rag" and more an actual newspaper.

[Mitch]

I read the New York Times quite a bit and they regularly use every single gun grabber cliche and talking point in their news articles: "loopholes", "gun violence", "assault rifles", "NRA influence", you name it. This firing pleases me no end.

One problem with your analysis is that each of the three media outlets you cite are at least as biased as the New York Times.

[speedrrracer]

That's what interesting - they didn't say why they fired her. That is, they couldn't admit to the "real reason" they fired her. This is a big deal because they had to endure the appearance it was based on equal pay; a huge embarrassment for a liberal newspaper. In fact, they came out specifically to deny this, but they still didn't say what was the actual reason or reasons.

Also, three weeks ago, she does an interview where she herself brings up the New York Times gun coverage as an example of unbiased coverage. Of course we all know that this such a huge, and ridiculous, lie that not even liberals can believe it. So then why does she say this? Why further damage your credibility - unless you have very good reasons. Like say, your job was on the line??? This is not obvious cause and effect, true, but the timing of events is interesting.

The "real" reason? No sure what you mean... Simple facts are that the NYT did not start their anti-2A tirade in 2011 when Abramson was made Exec Editor, therefore trying to suggest she was fired for anti-2A views doesn't pass the giggle test.

As for "they couldn't admit to the 'real reason' they fired her", yes, it is within the realm of possibility, and all the evidence I've seen suggests they did exactly that. They didn't like her mgmt of the newsroom, and they said as much. There is exactly zero reason to believe that isn't precisely the case. Hoping that a die-hard anti-2A newspaper actually wants to be pro-2A and therefore fired their anti-2A Exec Editor? Really sounds delusional to me, but if you have any facts, let's hear them. Certainly the NY gossip mill will cry sexism and racism and any word ending in "ism" -- they have no function in life but to spew that crap -- but as for facts? We have a direct statement from the paper itself, and zero contradicting evidence. What else have you seen?

[lasbrg]

One problem with your analysis is that each of the three media outlets you cite are at least as biased as the New York Times.

Agreed, but that what makes their criticism more interesting.

[lasbrg]

The "real" reason? No sure what you mean... Simple facts are that the NYT did not start their anti-2A tirade in 2011 when Abramson was made Exec Editor, therefore trying to suggest she was fired for anti-2A views doesn't pass the giggle test.

?

The "giggle test"? Really?

As for "they couldn't admit to the 'real reason' they fired her", yes, it is within the realm of possibility, and all the evidence I've seen suggests they did exactly that. They didn't like her mgmt of the newsroom, and they said as much. There is exactly zero reason to believe that isn't precisely the case. Hoping that a die-hard anti-2A newspaper actually wants to be pro-2A and therefore fired their anti-2A Exec Editor? Really sounds delusional to me, but if you have any facts, let's hear them. Certainly the NY gossip mill will cry sexism and racism and any word ending in "ism" -- they have no function in life but to spew that crap -- but as for facts? We have a direct statement from the paper itself, and zero contradicting evidence. What else have you seen?

"NY gossip mill"? How much do you know really know about the New York Times? Based on your comments and your insistence that nothing has changed, I would be surprised if you knew anything at all about them.

Like most newspapers, they are in a world of hurt and are facing incredible business pressure. And, yes, the Times had become more stridently anti-gun under Jill Abramson. I know this because I am a long time reader. I would ask if you are as well, but it's obvious that you're not.

[Hoop]

The idea that NY Times would fire someone for being "too liberal" on gun control issues is pretty funny. She probably screwed something up somewhere and they don't want to admit it for fear of embarrassment.

[speedrrracer]

OK, so lasbrg has no facts, just ad hom attacks. About par for the course, given lasbrg's past posts.