The New York Times was forced to issue a correction on a column regarding the Electoral College when their own words came back to haunt them.
On December 19th, the Times posted an op-ed titled Time to End the Electoral College, in which the editorial board argues that the electoral process is a “living symbol of America’s original sin.”
They stated unequivocally that the paper of record has opposed the Electoral College consistently for 80 years.
“This page opposed the Electoral College in 1936, and in more recent years as well,” the column read.
Those statements however, came back to haunt the authors when their argument to “end the Electoral College” was countered by their own words – a column in 2000 titled The Case for the Electoral College.
Here are the dueling narratives in plain sight …
Mockery over social media was abundant.
@TwitchyTeam That is the lib MSM for you & sorry I do not want CA choosing our President & an audit of votes need to be done.
— Cindy Piper (@ctumlin) December 21, 2016
@TwitchyTeam – Tell The New York Times That They’re Ripping Off The “Onion” – Unintentionally!
— CoffeeBoy207 (@MediaOwl207) December 21, 2016
The 2000 editorial was titled, “The Case for the Electoral College” and the editors argued that, “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 Times ended the editorial with:
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, what’s changed?
What changed you ask? As badly as the left tried to delegitimize the presidency of George W. Bush, those efforts are on steroids now that they’re trying to stop President-elect Donald Trump.
The New York Times own words betray their hypocrisy.
Comment: Will the mainstream media continue to go against their own beliefs just to counter Donald Trump and attempt to make him look foolish?