There’s a big furor right now over the NYT endorsement — but no matter if you are team Hillary or team Bernie, you should be aware that the NYT flat out sucks, in terms of their coverage of the 2016 race. In fact, it admitted it was biased against Sanders a few months ago. Here's what the paper had to say about it's own coverage of Sanders:
The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say.
Of course, the NYT isn't immune to lame coverage of other candidates. It breathlessly devoted and entire article to Hillary eating
a burrito at Chipotle, and criticized her not by pointing out her flip-flopping or poor judgement on the issues, but by tweaking her persona and comparing her to the Ice Queen in
Frozen. It also talked about how concerning it is that
Jeb Bush is dieting, writing the following cringe worthy piece of "journalism"
The rigid abstemiousness runs the risk of putting him at a dietary distance from an American electorate that still binges on carbohydrates and, after eight years of a tea-sipping president, craves a relatable eater-in-chief.
The paper values horse race journalism over the issues. It wrote over 47,000 pieces about "polls" in 2015 but less than 5,000 about the Keystone Pipeline or the TPP in that same time period.
These pieces of fluff journalism have become standard for this paper, which values fluff over substance - a truly sad state for a paper that's supposed to be "the paper of record." How could one truly trust the endorsement of such a paper?