Not Mitt. Not Carly.

Tillerson.

Does he get reported out of committee with a positive recommendation?

How many votes does he get?

Sound off.

[guest post by Dana]

Five days after the election, when the biting reality of Trump’s victory was still shattering lives, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, and executive editor Dean Baquet wrote a conciliatory note to readers. In part, it was meant to reassure readers fed up with the continual advocacy for Hillary Clinton outside of the op-ed pages, and let them know that the publisher and editor knew of the frustration, and promised to do better in the future. But given that their slight nod of acknowledgment was delivered with such smugness, I suspect already irked readers were not reassured as much as they were hoping for a way to slap that self-congratulatory arrogance right off the Gray Lady’s face. A portion of their joint note:

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

Following the pledge from Sulzberger and Baquet, public editor Liz Spayd went to her inbox, “listened” to reader criticism and examined the paper’s lopsided coverage of the election:

THERE is a group of 10 friends in Charlotte, N.C., all women, all in their 50s, all white. They’re college educated with successful careers, and they have a message for The New York Times: Come visit us.

They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. But now, they say, thanks to The Times and its fixation on Trump’s most extreme supporters, most people think they are.

…

[From] my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.

Readers complain heatedly and repeatedly about the forecasting odometer from The Upshot that was anchored on the home page and predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 80 percent chance or better of winning. They complain that The Times’s attempt to tap the sentiments of Trump supporters was lacking. And they complain about the liberal tint The Times applies to its coverage, without awareness that it does.

Few could deny that if Trump’s more moderate supporters are feeling bruised right now, the blame lies partly with their candidate and his penchant for inflammatory rhetoric. But the media is at fault too, for turning his remarks into a grim caricature that it applied to those who backed him. What struck me is how many liberal voters I spoke with felt so, too. They were Clinton backers, but, they want a news source that fairly covers people across the spectrum.

Spayd was recently a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show. Carlson wasted no time in addressing the blatant advocacy of the NYT with regard to election coverage, both prior and post. While Carlson described it as “advocacy” journalism, Spayd offered a bit of context in her description, which reinforced Carlson’s assessment:

…an unrecognized point of view that The Times has that comes from being in New York, being in a certain circle, and seeing the world a certain way, not being in touch with people who don’t live like them, and don’t live in cities and who are the ones who elected Donald Trump to the presidency. They’re (NYT writers) are out of touch with them.

Spayd’s willingness to look at the issue more fully and honestly went miles beyond the feeble efforts of Sulzberger and Baquet.

Unfortunately, in spite of Spayd’s efforts, The New York Times is continuing to do business as usual. Why else hire a reporter to cover the White House who was outed by Wikileaks as having sent stories to Hillary Clinton staffers on several occasions so that they could review them, and approve them before publication?

“We’re thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times,” Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times’ Washington bureau chief, told The Huffington Post. “He’s a premier political journalist, a master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar addition to our White House team.”

In light of the paper’s um, renewed commitment to report on America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to …reflect all political perspectives, consider this endorsement from Clinton’s former spokesman Brian Fallon:

If journalism is last line of defense in fight to hold Trump accountable, I’ll take my chances [with] combo of [Maggie Haberman] & [Glenn Thrush] at NYT.

Heh.

–Dana

Dan McLaughlin shared this story today. It’s deeply affecting and will probably leave you with tears in your eyes. But it’s worth your time all the same.

Fantastic.

China flew a nuclear-capable bomber outside its borders in a show of force less than a week before US President-elect Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Taiwan, it has been reported.

The 10-minute telephone call with President Tsai Ing-wen was the first by a US president-elect or president since President Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging Taiwan as part of ‘One China’. It led to protests from Beijing.

The Xian H-6 bomber flew along the disputed ‘nine-dash line’ around the South China Sea, US officials told Fox News, passing over a number of disputed islands. The officials said it was designed to send a message to the incoming administration.

Provocation meets with provocation.

Luckily we have a steady hand coming in to the Oval Office.

UPDATE: [This update is wrong; see UPDATE x2. — P] The language in the story is misleading some readers into thinking that the Chinese action took place before Trump’s call. Not so, although that’s what the story mistakenly says. The story is based on a Fox News story titled China flies nuclear-capable bomber in South China Sea after Trump Taiwan call, US officials say:

China flew a long-range nuclear-capable bomber outside China for the first time since President-elect Donald Trump spoke with the president of Taiwan, two US officials told Fox News.

. . . .

The Chinese H-6 bomber flew along the disputed “Nine-Dash line” Thursday, which surrounds the South China Sea and dozens of disputed Chinese islands, many claimed by other countries in the region.

The Pentagon was alerted to the Chinese flight Friday. It was the first long-range flight of a Chinese bomber along the U-shaped line of demarcation since March 2015, according to the officials.

I have inserted some cautionary language in the middle of the first blockquote in this post so that people are not misled further.

As I have said previously, I cautiously support Trump’s taking a call from Taiwan’s president, but it makes me nervous because it’s Trump. I don’t trust him not to fly off the handle, because every decision he has ever made his entire life was based on ego.

UPDATE x2: Oh, Good Lord. Sammy Finkelman cited a radio show saying the flight happened before the call. So I went back to the Fox News story to re-read it yet again — and there is a video at the Fox News link showing reporters clearly saying that the flight happened before the call, just as Sammy said. Note that this video appears in a story that says quite clearly that the call happened before the flight. The headline, again, is “China flies nuclear-capable bomber in South China Sea after Trump Taiwan call, US officials say.” In case they change it, I took this screenshot:

Not only that, but in a story written on Friday December 9 they say the flight happened “Thursday” but officials found out about it “Friday” (as quoted in the post above) — strongly implying that the flight happened Thursday, December 8, after Trump’s call.

The sloppiness is not the Independent’s fault. It’s Fox News’s fault, and it’s pretty bad. The headline is dead wrong and the story is misleading.

Sheesh.

UPDATE x3: I give up trying to figure this out. DRJ offers this link to Stars and Stripes from today saying:

Tensions are mounting following reports that China flew long-range military aircraft near Taiwan and over disputed parts of the South China Sea at a time when President-elect Donald Trump has questioned a longstanding diplomatic agreement between Washington and Beijing.

The flights reportedly came shortly before and after Trump broke decades of U.S. practice earlier this month by accepting a phone call from Taiwan’s president, but before Trump questioned the “One China” policy that has heavily influenced relations between the U.S., Taiwan and China since the 1970s.

. . . .

Trump’s phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen is believed to be the first of its kind since the late 1970s, when the U.S. closed its Taiwan embassy and removed U.S. troops from the island.

The phone call spurred China to demonstrate a show of force, said Toshiyuki Shikata, a retired lieutenant general in Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force and a professor at Teikyo University.

“China cannot let [Trump and Tsai] go over its head and talk to each other,” Shikata told Stars and Stripes.

Shikata said the call could be seen by other countries in the region as a projection of power and compel them to ally themselves with the U.S. over China, a move that China would feel bound to counter.

A nuclear-capable Chinese Xian H-6 bomber reportedly flew last Thursday along the Chinese-drawn “nine-dash line,” which surrounds about 90 percent of the South China Sea and includes the exclusive economic zones of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.

Fox News reported the flight, citing two anonymous U.S. officials.

Last Thursday is December 8, well after the call. So Stars and Stripes is saying the flight reported by Fox News happened after the call. But the video at the Fox News link above said the flight happened less than a week before the call. The video is dated December 5. The Fox News story is dated December 9.

My best guess is that flights happened before and after the call. It’s tough to say with certainty that the flight after the call was not spurred by the call.

But to be honest, at this point I’m so confused I don’t know what to think and I am now done trying to analyze it.