The mainstream media has been busy at work admonishing the alternative media, trying to accuse us of being fake news… But if the alternative media did not exist, who would be around to call the mainstream media out on their “fake news”?
The New York Times has been caught in a blatant lie, a lie so blatant in fact, that the outlet was forced to issue an embarrassing correction on their own article after being called on it.
After Trump won the election, outlets outed in Wikileaks as colluding with the Clinton campaign went straight to work whining about how Hillary won the popular vote and crying that the Electoral College should be banished.
In a piece titled “Time to End the Electoral College,” The NYT Editorial Board wrote:
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.
Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules, but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy.
The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin.
Pretty dramatic, huh?
The outlet went on to say:
This page opposed the Electoral College in 1936, and in more recent years as well. In 2004, President George W. Bush won the popular vote by more than three million, but he could have lost the Electoral College with a switch of fewer than 60,000 votes in Ohio.
But they left out one little bit of info… the editorial board DEFENDED the Electoral College in 2000 when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.
In a piece titled, “The Case for the Electoral College,” the board specifically disagreed with… you’ll never guess… Hillary Clinton on abolishing the EC, writing:
Among others, New York’s senator-elect, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has condemned the present system and promised to co-sponsor legislation abolishing it and providing for the direct election of the president. That would be a mistake. The Electoral College has enough benefits to justify its survival.
Yet the arguments for the Electoral College are also compelling, and in our view, outweigh the majoritarian case put forward by Mrs. Clinton and others. 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.
The system has survived earlier instances in which the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency. Wise voters and legislators will want to make sure that it survives this one as well.
So which is it, NYT? America’s original sin or a system of checks and balances “designed to ensure that one state or one region did not dominate the others”?
Once they “remembered” they weren’t exactly being honest about their Electoral College position, NYT was forced to issue this correction on their 2016 call for abolishing the EC:
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.
Egg on their face much?
Kind of proves that nothing they say politically means much of anything, doesn’t it?
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.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”