Peter Baker Is A Hack

On November 13th, The New York Times

Aware that they had completely blown all of their journalistic integrity by treating the election like a reality show, issued a “rededication” to their readers, promising to return to their former fair self. Nearly seven months later, it is painfully obvious that this was nothing more than good old fashioned lip service. Bunk. A lie. A “cover your butt” stunt. A sorta-kinda-not really apology. A “please still believe us” piece. If anything, it looks like it was just another dumb excuse for the morons at The New York Times to talk about how great their staff is even though their staff totally muffed the election. It’s wasn’t just that The New York Times got the result completely wrong, it was the fact that the coverage was abominable. MSNBC zombie Joe Scarborough was right to call them “The Onion” the day after they printed their joke of a “rededication” (video at bottom).

I’m linking the article here . You can read it for yourself, but there’s really no reason to. The New York Times hasn’t changed. In treating Donald Trump’s candidacy like a reality television show, their coverage degenerated into clickbait. Forget intellectualism, forget policy, forget journalistic standards, integrity, impartiality, or any of the other hallmarks of quality journalism. The New York Times was more interested in overzealously chasing the trivial nonsense. It was no surprise to find out via Wikileaks that SIX (now Seven, if you count Glenn Thrush) New York Times reporters actively colluded with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

This is a very serious charge that I don’t believe that neither the New York Times nor the individual reporters themselves have ever deigned to provide an answer for. Why bother? There’s no real consequences in the journalism world now that everything has degenerated into clickbait. Just run a retraction later when nobody is paying attention. Running a retraction used to be a cardinal sin in journalism, but nowadays it is a fairly standard procedure and is regularly employed, maybe even deliberately. Because I’m such a jerk I’ll go ahead and remind everyone of the rats at the New York Times: Amy Chozik, Gail Collins, Jonathon Martin, Maggie Haberman, Mark Leibovich, and Pat Healey ( The only media outlet that was MORE collusive with the Hillary Clinton campaign was…surprise, surprise…CNN. They had nine such “team players”.

Las week, Trump Administration spokesperson Sean Spicer singled out New York Times bozo reporter Peter Baker for his idiotic story about Donald Trump not wearing an earpiece when the Italian Prime Minister was speaking during the G7. Spicer is absolutely correct to call Peter Baker and The New York Times “fake news” for running such a garbage story. Not only was it completely false, but moreover…it’s far, far beneath the standards of intellectualism that The New York Times regularly boasts. It’s tabloid crap. Total clickbait. The kind of junk that the bottom feeders of the news cycle cover, like Daily Beast or Daily Kos. It’s certainly not intellectually stimulating, nor is it relevant. It wasn’t even accurate. It is fake news.

But Peter Baker isn’t finished demonstrating his lack of journalistic ability and integrity. Following the London Bridge terror attack (which is coming right on the heels of the Ariana Grande concert attack in Manchester), Peter Baker decides to run another idiotic article linked here:

You didn’t misread that clickbait headline. “After Brittan Attacks, Trump Feuds With London Mayor”. Again, no reason to read the article, the dumb headline speaks volumes about the vapid content of the article. Peter Baker and the New York Times have a serious problem distinguishing between covering President Donald Trump and the Kardashians. That type of lame clickbait headline belongs with stories that are about which Kardashians aren’t getting along. I’ve read articles about professional wrestling feuds that have more dignity than the yellow rubbish from Peter Baker. You don’t have to like the President, but for the sake of journalistic professionalism, you should elevate your standards and respect the office by putting your best foot forward when it comes to covering the President. I had always thought that the New York Times was a bit more thoughtful, more intelligent, and more professional when it came to covering big stories. Thanks to hacks like Peter Baker, the New York Times is just another clickbait rag.

This is, by the way, to say nothing of the fact that Peter Baker has chosen to ignore any and every other story that could be reported regarding this violent Ramadan in England. There’s tons of great stories that could be reported. Peter Baker can’t be bothered to do anything other than try and turn another major terrorist attack into Trump the reality show. Multiple violent terrorist attacks in England during Ramadan and Peter Baker thinks a twitter beef is news. This is precisely the type of swill that makes the New York Times deserve to be called “fake news.”

Peter Baker is a hack and a blight upon the once-noble profession of journalism. If he can’t cover the President of the United States without framing it as a reality show, then maybe Baker should stick to covering re-runs of Honey Boo-Boo. It’s more in line with his journalistic skills and integrity. As for the New York Times, maybe it’s time to re-rededicate itself to legitimate journalism. Aside from journalistic hack Peter Baker, I can think of about…six other journalists that the New York Times would benefit from cutting…


Whiskey Congress
EditorWhiskey Congress
Let's Talk Elections
EditorLet's Talk Elections
Whiskey Congress
EditorWhiskey Congress
Whiskey Congress
EditorWhiskey Congress
New Comment