Accuracy in Media

MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews flummoxed New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor when he asked her if she knew anyone at the Times who was pro-life:

Matthews: Do you know anybody, Yamiche, at The New York Times who is pro-life?

Alcindor: “That’s not a question I’m going to answer. I have no idea.”

Matthews: Do you know anybody, you don’t have to name names. Do you know anybody at the New York Times who is pro-life?

Alcindor: “I have not asked my coworkers that question, I should say”

Matthews: “That’s cute. That’s the way you make your point.”

It’s a safe bet to say that a large majority of those working at the Times are pro-choice, given the paper’s liberal viewpoint, and if there are any pro-life supporters, they are probably remaining silent to avoid any retribution from their co-workers or management.





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • IronChefSandwiches

    “It’s a safe bet to say that a large majority of those working at the Times are pro-choice, given the paper’s liberal viewpoint, and if there are any pro-life supporters, they are probably remaining silent to avoid any retribution from their co-workers or management.”

    One of the dumbest sentences Spencer has ever written. It’s a newspaper, you sniveling idiot. They report the news. Unlike “Accuracy” in Media, they don’t sit around checking on each other’s opinions. Dumbass.

  • Rick Kelly

    Are you suggesting that the liberals at the NY Times are not TOLERANT? That they would condemn or would exact retribution for anyone’s differing viewpoint or lifestyle? That they don’t AFFIRM every life choice, even if it differs from their own? I am flabbergasted!

  • Steven Barrett

    Generally I wouldn’t disagree with you Ironchef, but Ms. Alcindor was well within her right to keep mum on the identity of any Times reporter who doesn’t support Roe. It makes no difference whether or not the paper is the NYTs, Washington Post, Huffington Post, or Boston Globe … whatever. The competition for these reporters to land any job as a beginning journalist, much less enduring all the future challenges that come with fighting for promotion in an atmosphere such as the Times editorial department is fierce.
    I can remember working for a small town weekly college town newspaper and had to be very circumspect about my views because they didn’t just represent my views, they represented the views of the paper’s owner as well. I was reminded of this rather brusquely and rightfully so by my publisher after I let loose on a supermarket chain for pushing Christmas decorations up too soon and no matter how tacky I thought it was, one central fact couldn’t be ignored: that supermarket, through buying lots of advertising space in the paper was also putting the food on the table for my wife and our first child, then an infant. Now that was a “non-controversial” matter, imagine if I’d written a scathing column about abortion, which is far more of a “third rail” issue than Social Security. It was one thing for me to take issue with the local academics on issues like the nuclear freeze, “nuke free zone” and “sister city” links with Russian cities still under Soviet governance, but abortion is another league, and more potentially perilous, for any publisher or editorial staff head to contend with. It’s just a fact of life. And since editors are forever advising their reporters to keep their views on this always potentially explosive topic to themselves, Matthew, who’s been around editors and newspaper reporters long enough to know this and not to have put Jamiche Alcindor in that position. It’s one thing if the reporter asks for and gets permission to let it be known where he or she stands on any given controversial issue, and takes the chance. It’s another thing altogether for a very powerful national television reporter with all the experience and contacts Matthews has at his fingertips to presume he can just “call out” Reporter Jones after he or she was ID’d as being one way or another on abortion or some other controversial and basically speaking, “no win” issue.