Apology 2.0?

 I see a handful individuals commenting on the New York Times' performance in this election and 2016.  

After the journalistic debacle of 2016 in which every poll, news report and opinion in the New York Times appeared pretty precisely wrong, what did the NYT commit to do to improve its performance.  

From their apology letter.

Our Readers, From the Publisher and Executive Editor

Nov. 13, 2016

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher 

Dean Baquet, executive editor

 For anyone not of the radical critical theory left, this seemed mere brand damage control.  Would the New York Times honestly report on the whole nation?  Highly improbable.

In their apology letter, the delphic quality becomes clearer in hindsight.  They promised.

You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

And they delivered.  With their noted agility and creativity, they immediately plunged into the Russia Hoax, Ukraine Hoax, Charlottesville Hoax, the Impeachment Farce, and every other hoax which might conceivably be damaging to Trump.  They reported for three and a half years exactly as they had covered the 2016 election.  

And then spent six months covering the election exactly as they did in 2016.

With the consequence that their failure is the same.  None of the reported Blue Wave.  An undecided election, likely to continue for days or weeks.  No change in state legislatures.  No (so far) retaking of the Senate.  No gains in the House (the reverse, net losses).  The New York Times once again got virtually everything wrong in their reporting, polling, forecasts, and opinions. 

If journalism were indeed a profession with ethics, this would be a deathblow to their reputation and brand.  But journalism as a profession is long behind us.  There are no professional standards.  There is no humility.  There is no shame.  

I would be happy were they to

Report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.

But it is clear that that is not their mission at all.