Report: New York Times Editor Claims Paper Is Not ‘Anti-Trump’

NYT Cartoon
New York Times

A New York Times deputy managing editor reportedly denied the paper’s status as a prominent “anti-Trump” publication during a FT Future of News event Thursday.

The Financial Times‘ FT Future of News event, which is designed to facilitate discussions between “top media and advertising executives, editors, academic,s and technology leaders,” took place in New York Thursday.

“Trust and transparency remain key issues, as the fourth estate becomes entangled in the polarization of American politics, and the major technology platforms struggle to clamp down on the use of fake news to derail democracy,” the event overview stated.

This year’s speakers included Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post; Radhika Jones, editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair; Don Lemon, anchor and correspondent for CNN; Samantha Barry, editor-in-chief of Glamour; and Rebecca Blumenstein, deputy managing editor of The New York Times.

Blumenstein reportedly used her platform at the event to deny the Times‘ role in promoting deliberate anti-Trump news.

She was quoted saying, “We are in no way anti-Trump.”

From the time of President Trump’s political inception, the New York Times has issued a full-out assault.

In 2017, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas caught Nicholas Dudich, who was the Times‘ Audience Strategy Editor at the time, admitting to a range of ethical violations.

“My imprint is on every video we do,” he said.

He added that he “always” made sure that anti-Trump stories were prioritized.

“I’d target his business, his dumb f**k son of a son Don Jr. and Eric, so they’re running Trump, like, the Trump business– target that. Get people to boycott his hotels,” Dudich added.

More recently, Times columnist Paul Krugman described Trump as  a “racist” who uses charged rhetoric to win elections. Trump responded to the criticism on Twitter.

The Times hit back, scolding Trump for describing it as an “enemy of the people.”

In May, the paper published a misleading report titled, “Trump Admits to Russia ‘Helping Me to Get Elected.’” It was based on an awkwardly worded tweeted that came from the president earlier in the day.

Although it was clear Trump was denying the existence of collusion, the Times didn’t see it that way.

As Breitbart News reported at the time:

The Times added that Trump “has avoided saying publicly that Russia helped him win the presidency in 2016 through its election interference.” The implication of that sentence is that Trump might have said so, or thought so, privately. It also presumes Russia actually helped him win.

Shortly thereafter, Trump told reporters: “No, Russia did not help me get elected. Do you know who got me elected? Do you know who got me elected? I got me elected. Russia didn’t help me at all. Russia, if anything, I think, helped the other side. What you ought to ask is this: Do you think the media helped Hillary Clinton get elected?”

The Times also recently published a controversial editorial, partially blaming the rise of antisemitism on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump specifically.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not helped matters by finding common cause with nationalist leaders like the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban or President Trump so long as they do not support a Palestinian state,” the Editorial Board wrote.

The Times faced a political firestorm a month prior after featuring an antisemitic cartoon depicting Netanyahu as a dog, leading along a blind Trump.

Additionally, the publication faced immense criticism after publishing an incomplete piece on Trump’s tax returns, in part by failing to note the reality of New York City’s real estate crash.

As Breitbart News reported:

The Times story on Trump’s taxes does not include the condition of the New York City real estate market in those years, although every link to data in this article (saving the Furman Center study) is to articles in the New York Times.

This is not the first time the Times has declared Trump a business failure. In 1991, when the losses the New York Times reported on this week were mounting, Times columnist Floyd Norris declared that Trump’s financial troubles meant “the Trump aura will never be the same.”

Trump has already credited a future 2020 win to the paper.

“We’re going to win another four years for a lot of reasons, most importantly because our country is starting to do well again and we’re being respected again,” Trump told the Times’ Michael Schmidt in a December 2017 interview.

“But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes,” Trump continued.

“Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times,” he added. “So they basically have to let me win.”


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.