The news is supposed to be reported fairly and in a timely manner.

At least that was the original stated intent of newspapers.

Surely a tiny amount of bias would make its way into stories. Everyone knows that. A person can only write so objectively and every story is seen through the lens of a person with a certain view of the world. So it’s not like reporting is 100% Free of bias.

Just the way a story is presented is biased.

But news is still supposed to be about the facts and just the facts.

Yet a former Executive editor at the New York Times says that is not at all how the once-esteemed newspaper conducts itself.

Now it is seriously anti-Trump. They don’t care to hide it.

And they’re doing it for the most salacious of reasons.

Trump Is Their Enemy?

Jill Abramson, has a new book coming out in a few weeks. Based on the content it remains to be seen if the publishers at the Times will volunteer to put this on their best-seller list.

That’s because Abramson says in the book The New York Times is bound to hate, that the Times is “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Titled “Merchants of Truth,” Abramson book reports on something most of us have suspected (and can plainly see).  The Times is no longer a straight news coverage organization.

But what’s surprising is the reason for their cruel treatment of Trump.

Part of the reason they’are at war with Trump isn’t just political, but financial.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative,” she wrote.

“They drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated.”

Their anti-Trump coverage netted them an increased subscription rate of nearly 333%. In the first six months he was in office the subscription rate went from 600,000 to over 2 million.

The Western Journal writes:

“She explained that the younger staffers in particular believed they needed to continually produce anti-Trump coverage.

“The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,” Abramson wrote.

The veteran journalist also had harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.

“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” she wrote.

The New York Times Isn’t The Only Enemy

It may seem obvious, but what Abramson said about the anti-Trump coverage vindicates Trump and his claims that most of the news outlets put out little more than “Fake News.”

Abramson said that the Washington Post and other liberal publications are taking part in the same thing the New York Times is doing.

It’s all for the money.

The subscribers.

And the power.

“Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis,” she said.