New York Times Admits "Searing" Complaints About Coverage Hit 15 Year High

Tyler Durden's picture

Amid the chaos surrounding Trump Tower and The New York Times, the so-called "failing" publication's readers are complaining at a rate on par with what was seen after 9/11 with an angry message: "I expect more from The Times."

As's Katie Frates reports, Times readers are writing and calling the Times and commenting on articles in droves to express, according to Spayd, “a searing level of dissatisfaction” with the 165-year-old paper’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

Complaints to the public editor are at five times the normal level; customer care is also seeing an uptick in calls.


“I expect more from The Times.”


That’s what reader Judy Barlas told NYTimes editor Liz Spayd for her article, “One Thing Voters Agree On: Better Campaign Coverage Was Needed.” Barlas supported Sen. Bernie Sanders, and felt like the Times pushed a narrative that then-competitor Hillary Clinton was always going to win the Democratic nomination.


A decidedly liberal lean, the narrative that Clinton was sure to win (both in the primary and general election), and a lack of fair coverage of President-elect Donald Trump supporters have liberals, moderates and conservatives upset.


A few instances of lackluster coverage include the Times failing to cover sexual assault allegations against former President Bill Clinton like it did allegations against Trump; a columnist joking about an assassination attempt against Trump; reporter John Harwood being outed as very cozy with Clinton’s campaign; the paper giving little coverage to thousands of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails released by WikiLeaks; and the Times actually editing a story about Clinton at her request.

To top it off, even liberal readers felt the Times mischaracterized Trump supporters as racist bigots.

They wanted “a news source that fairly covers people across the spectrum,” Spayd wrote, and they weren’t getting it.


Readers are calling for fresh blood, “I’m tired of the old guard,” one said.


Cindy Capwell, a Trump supporter disenfranchised by the Times’ characterization of his base as racist, anti-Muslim and homophobic, told Spayd, “I hope you guys will give people like us a chance too. It’s time to lay down our arms.”

As The Hill reports, readers complained that “The Upshot” column forecasting the race was hopelessly wrong; it had said Clinton had an 80 percent or better chance of winning the election. Letters and comments to the public editor also registered unhappiness with the coverage of Trump supporters, arguing they were stereotyped and misunderstood. And the public editor said many complained that the Times is not even aware of the “liberal tint” it applies to its coverage. 

Spayd highlights one letter to the paper in particular that claims the paper is responsible for Trump supporters being painted as “homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim.”


“There is a group of 10 friends in Charlotte, N.C., all women, all in their 50s, all white. They’re college educated with successful careers, and they have a message for The New York Times: Come visit us,” Spayd writes.


“They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. But now, they say, thanks to The Times and its fixation on Trump’s most extreme supporters, most people think they are,” wrote Spayd, who took over as public editor in July.

Ironically, The Times reported last week that it added 41,000 print and digital subscriptions since Trump's victory on Nov. 8. It marks the most subscribers the paper has added in one week since digital subscriptions began being offered in 2011.

But, oh to be a fly on the wall in Trump Tower today.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Boris Alatovkrap's picture

NY Times is make Pravda gold standard in truthy reporting!

balz's picture

You were faster than me, bro. I upvoted you.

macholatte's picture




Big Corked Boots's picture

All the news that fits, they print.

Pinto Currency's picture

NYT publicly 'rededicates' itself to honest reporting = NYT is toast

Ghost of PartysOver's picture

reported last week that it added 41,000 print and digital subscriptions

Seasonally Adjusted using the BLS methods I presume.

Pinto Currency's picture

No recovery for NYT when it publicly admits to having published dishonest reporting.

Mr. Bones's picture

In a rational world, people might demand the sacrifice of an editor (at least) in order to save the tarnished name of the "paper of record," certainly more could be justified.

Will they?

FireBrander's picture

"Added 41,000".

How many were canceled?

Checked the NYT's subscription rates...$1.88 a week digital...$4.70 delivered...YIKES...we should all subscribe to the delivered...they've got to lose money on every delivered paper..."making it up" with advertising fees...subscribe to the printed version, then boycott thier advertisers...:)

The Cable/Sat industry "adds" 10's of 1000's of customers every week...but cancellations are outpacing subscriptions and have been for YEARS!

venturen's picture

Carlos Slim...just purchased 41000 subscription.... Who believes people are subscribing to the NYT? Maybe he split it with Soros...


I know a dozen people that read the NYT for decades....none of them do now!


What millenial is subscribing....they have reddit and twitter for their news...LOL

FireBrander's picture

No one will be fired because no one intended to do anything wrong; it just all is well in the new normal.

StychoKiller's picture

Hmm, 41,000 denizens of the Echo Chamber (that don't see any "Bias!").

silverer's picture

The promise is for better propaganda.

DeadFred's picture

At least they are not vulnerable to an antitrust suit. Google and Facebook are toast.

OliversWilde's picture

 Yes they are.... RE: the so called addition of subscriptions, here is their letter to me after I wrote them to cancel:

"We know this is a tumultuous time, and we would like to extend an offer to maintain your digital subscription for 8 weeks at no cost before returning to your regular subscription rate. If you are interested in accepting, please give us a call at 1-800-698-4637"...



Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Neighbor is upgrade to better wifi, is leave default password, so Boris is upvote YOU!

StychoKiller's picture

Boris is does war-driving, fits in his personhood!

MFL5591's picture

Help them go under, do not read or look on their site!

In Ze No's picture

Although CBS online coverage should probably win the Baghdad Bob award.  Damn, talk about shameless and open slant.  Television tidied things up a bit.

Killdo's picture

Jew York Times always reminded me of the communist newspaper my father used to read in Yugoslavia in 70s - the party must always be right

swmnguy's picture

The only problem I have with the New York Times is they peddle that bullshit about "media objectivity."  That's a relatively recent concept in the US, and it's as much bullshit as every other corporate marketing technique.  

Until corporate interests starting buying up media outlets in the 1920s and 1930s, there was no notion that the media could be objective, or that anyone would want such a thing.  You had the commie paper, the fascist paper, the religious nut paper, whatever you can think of.  You bought a few different ones to read about the same thing from different perspectives, and came to your own conclusions.

It was only after corporations starting buying up the media outlets and trying to create local monopolies on ad revenues that they started trying to "professionalize" journalism.  Universities were happy to play along, creating degrees in "Journalism," which had never existed before.  The goal was to create a forum that didn't alienate any potential advertisers.

Like every other aspect of our culture corporations have taken over, it's all become marketing and it's all become bullshit.  Of course the media isn't "Objective."  If you want to know what corporate America wants you to think, you consume the corporate media.  It can be very informative; not so much what's in the text but the white spaces on the page; what's not in the text.  And since corporate "news" is a for-profit commodity, like everything else that has become commoditized, the producers get lazy.  They use the same identical phrasing and cliches.  What they don't say is very informative indeed.

It's like the old Soviet joke you no doubt know, that you can learn everything you need to know from reading Pravda.  You just have to know how to read Pravda.

Navymugsy's picture

I miss the truth and openess of Pravda.

balz's picture

The NYT is the 21th century american Pravda.

FreedomGuy's picture

Put a chart of their readership up over time, as well.

The question is how would you change given the staff and leadership you already have on hand?

Change is likely temporary and shallow.

People can choose their own news sources and editorials, now.

FireBrander's picture

They give away the local paper in stores to "let you try it"...person after person refuses to take a FREE copy...print media is dead. 

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Carlos Slime may have a lot of money, but his resources are not bottomless.  Good luck to the NYT trying to stave off the inevitable.  Like King Kanute (sp?) tyring to hold back the rising tide w/a broom. 

the.ghost.of.22wmr's picture
the.ghost.of.22wmr (not verified) Nov 22, 2016 1:56 PM

NYT = Barbarous Relic

In Ze No's picture

You're tired of the old guard?

What makes you think the old guard gives a shit what you think?

Americans truly do not get what's going on.

LA_Goldbug's picture

"I expect more from The Times."

Since 2001 I don't.

Kilgore Trout's picture

Oh to be a tweeting fly on the wall.

ParkAveFlasher's picture

Upticks due to straw subscribers with Yahoo email addresses, paid from Clinton Foundation front accounts,.  Paid-in-full for services rendered.


WayPastCaring's picture

"Ironically, The Times reported last week that it added 41,000 print and digital subscriptions since Trump's victory on Nov. 8. It marks the most subscribers the paper has added in one week since digital subscriptions began being offered in 2011."

LMFAO! Yeah, after all their propaganda I'm supposed to just accept these numbers??? What BS. Fuck those scumbags.

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

Gee, you don't think they'd lie, do you???

OliversWilde's picture


Such lying assholes...Just repeating my comment for you here:) : 

"RE: the so called addition of subscriptions, they were offering people a FREE subscription around the time of the election, and then when people called/wrote in droves to cancel they were offering 8 free weeks as a consolation as per this letter to me: 

"We know this is a tumultuous time, and we would like to extend an offer to maintain your digital subscription for 8 weeks at no cost before returning to your regular subscription rate. If you are interested in accepting, please give us a call at 1-800-698-4637"..."

alexcojones's picture

Shitty paper read by deluded elites who believe themselves somehow enlightened.

Die NYT, Die


Mountainview's picture

NYT is only part of a huge monolithic block of one dimensional thinking.

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

They are merely a point in space, which has no dimension at all......

Mountainview's picture

apart of the financial dimension.

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

That makes it a black hole.....

Abitdodgie's picture

You have to be kinda "special" to even read that rubbish.

Allen_H's picture

The Jew York Slimes, stay away from it.

orangegeek's picture

NYT was always been a lefty organization full of liars.


This time, the NYT is out in the open about it-


- if you want your lugenpresse socialist propaganda, you can keep your lugenpresse socialist propaganda.

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

The only way to fix the NYT is fire all the ideologues, which means all the writers and editors, start from scratch.  They can't get rid of their spots.  No way.  The infection is not treatable.

Then, you either try to weed out the ideological slant from all the writing, or you hire half leftists and half conservatives and maintain that 50/50 split.  Problem is, many current subscribers would drop, cuz they can't stand to hear a perspective differing from their own (presently, they keep ol' Dave Brooks around for that purpose and for some light-hearted chuckles).  That is not what they want with their Sunday morning coffee.  At all.

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

In a circle of about 20 or 30 middle aged friends, maybe 3 or 4 still take a printed paper (and typically it's for some non-news features, like crossword puzzles, or weekly ads/coupons).  I go to my mom's nursing home, and practically every geezer there takes at least one paper.  

I get it, the geezers have very little to do besides read, but the point is, they're literally preaching to a dying audience.  

dietrolldietroll's picture

I don't get all the shouts and complaints about bias. Yeah, their "bias is showing", duh. Bias just means they have an opinion; Who doesn't? We should worry when their appears to be no bias. These complainers are just angry because they have been enlightened to the truth; But it is themselves with whom they should be angry. You have the truth, now do something about it (hint: stop reading).

Ecclesia Militans's picture

Because they pay a big fat salary to some former FA major to serve as an "Ombudsman" with a task to focus on ensuring that there is no bias, except for the editorial pages.  So the outrage you question is about the hypocrisy.

bloofer's picture

So the outrage you question is about the hypocrisy.

It's also about "the truth"--meaning (in case you didn't know) not printing falsehoods and unfounded allegations. The Times has presented many, many outright lies, about a LOT of things.  

SharkBit's picture

Time to rebrand.  NYTimes to become 0 ZeroCred.