Friday, January 06, 2017 by JD Heyes
It’s not been a good year for the so-called “mainstream media,” which has dishonored and discredited itself at nearly every opportunity, largely over its incredibly biased and slanted political coverage.
The New York Times, especially, has seen its reputation take a hit, which is a big deal considering it is ‘the paper of record’ in the United States.
As reported by The Daily Sheeple, the Times was recently caught in a massive lie regarding the results of the Nov. 8 election—so big, in fact, that the paper’s editorial board was forced to issue an embarrassing correction after it was called out.
Following Donald J. Trump’s victory, media outed by WikiLeaks as colluding with the campaign of his rival, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, went right to work, on cue, blasting the Electoral College and whining about how their favored candidate “won the popular vote,” as if that’s ever mattered since the founding of our country.
In fact, the Times’ board wrote a piece titled, Time to End the Electoral College:
By overwhelming majorities, Americans would prefer to elect the president by direct popular vote, not filtered through the antiquated mechanism of the Electoral College. They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes.
In addition, the editorial said that Trump “won under the rules” but that “the rules should change,” and that the Electoral College itself is a byproduct of “America’s original sin” of slavery—not an ingenious system of governance crafted by men far wiser and with more forward vision than the last 50 member of the NYT Electoral Board combined.
But just 16 years ago, the Times’ Editorial Board agreed with the establishment and use of the Electoral College, disagreeing with Hillary Clinton who was calling for it to be banished:
The nation’s founders sought in various creative ways to create checks and balances, both inside and outside government. The Electoral College was first and foremost a compact among states, large and small, designed to ensure that one state or one region did not dominate the others.
That’s exactly right. And that compact remains just as important and necessary today, so that voters in only two populous states—California and New York—don’t get to decide who becomes president term after term.
The founders entertained the notion of the popular vote deciding the presidency, but determined that such a system was subject to being hijacked by fraudsters, ne’er-do-wells and candidates with thin consciences and plenty of baggage (like Hillary Clinton). The only way the Electoral College can even remotely be tied to ‘America’s original sin’ is the ¾’s of a person clause in counting African slaves of the day. That’s it.
More to the point, this massive discrepancy by the Times did not go unnoticed. The most recent op-ed claimed that the NYT Editorial Board has opposed the Electoral College for 80 years; obviously that was a massive lie, and one that spurred this published retraction:
Correction: December 20, 2016
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that the editorial board has been opposed to the Electoral College going back 80 years. It failed to note an exception: in 2000, the board defended the college after the election of George W. Bush.
“This is beyond hypocritical… What it shows is that the NYT will change positions and rally for whomever the chosen establishment candidate is no matter what, even if it makes them look like ridiculous hypocrites,” The Daily Sheeple noted.
Of course that’s all true.