Letter to the New York Times

My name is Samantha Johnson and I am writing this letter today to express my extreme displeasure with the way your publication, the New York Times, has been covering President Trump. As a Trump voter, it is not difficult to see how Trump has so far been an excellent President and how your organization has consistently covered him unfairly. 

I recognized that your publication did not cover Trump in a fair way before he become President. For instance, while the New York Times covered every possible negative story about Trump, they failed to adequately include most stories that were negative about Hillary Clinton. I am an avid reader and regularly read stories from Twitter and Facebook and recognize that there is a substantial amount of negative stories about Clinton that your publication could have taken more seriously or written about in greater depth. For instance, Clinton’s pizzagate controversy, in which her chief of staff John Podesta used pizza as code words for sexually explicit things, was only covered by your publication as if it were humorous and not to be taken seriously (“Pizzagate Is Not Fake News.”). 

Similarly, during the election the New York Times regularly ignored any story that might have been remotely favorable to Trump. For instance, during the election Facebook and Twitter regularly featured the story about how Pope Francis had supported Trump (“Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump For President”). However, this story was not even covered by the Times! With hundreds of millions of Catholics living in the world and Pope Francis’s substantial stature among these people, such a story is undoubtedly something that should have been adequately covered. 

Of course, the New York Times negative coverage of Trump was not something that was limited to the election, but has continued to occur well past the election and into his Presidency. In a significant amount of stories, the Times presents stories that while on their surface seem unbiased, in actuality have a substantial ideological tone that is clearly meant to influence the public towards a liberal agenda. For instance, the title of Lara Jakes’s recent story “Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Is Denounced By 134 Foreign Policy Experts” clearly is designed to advance a political agenda regarding Trump’s travel ban. If the journalists were truly interested in covering peoples’ perspectives on the travel ban, she would have featured a title that was neutral and used this title and instead covered both sides of the story. 

The truth is that while many foreign policy experts may disagree with the travel ban, in actuality these people may not be concerned with our national security, but simply concerned with helping radical Muslim terrorists enter our country. As a Christian American, I believe that if people come into our country they should obey our rules and not expect us to change our customs in order to meet their religious beliefs. Some of the people that are entering the country from these banned nations even expect us to allow them to wear their hijabs in their driver’s license photos. If these people are allowed to keep coming into our country they will bring these customs, not to mention terrorist practices, to completely change our way of life and harm our citizens. Yet, the the New York Times and its elitist perspective has completely ignored these facts.  

Get a brand-new guide on essay writing

Everything you need to get A+ this semester!

Get it

By continuing, you agree to the Terms And conditions and Privacy policy

The download will start within seconds. Good luck!

Download

Unfortunately, New York Times journalists and the democrats that they are supporting do not seem to accept the fact that Trump won the election fair and square. Instead of protesting every little thing he does, they should get over it, support him, and help him move on with the country. Instead, your publication has not only not supported the President, but they have actively fabricated negative news about him. Consider a story that was published recently by Jack Healy “No Health Insurance is Hard. No Phone? Unthinkable.” The line promoting the story stated, “Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah suggested that Americans should invest in health care rather than “getting that new iPhone.” His constituents had something to say about that.” Although the story itself contained statements that supported both sides of the issue, through promoting the story with such a biased statement, readers begin the article with the perspective that the representative’s statements are wrong. In actuality, the Representative Chaffetz did not mean that people would have to choose between having a phone and having health insurance, but rather meant that people would have to choose between purchasing health insurance and unnecessary luxuries like updating their iPhone every year. However, the Times deliberately slanted the story in favor of their liberal agenda.

Not only has the Times been unfavorable to President Trump but it has also been completely unbiased and unfair to his cabinet appointees. This was perhaps most true for Trump’s education secretary Betsy DeVos. During her nomination proceedings, the Times editorial staff even ran a story titled, “Betsy Devos Teaches The Value Of Ignorance” in which your argued that DeVos was unqualified for the position and was only driven to advance her religious agenda. While it’s bad enough that the times is publishing such derisive stories about a nominee, but it has also been on the democrat’s side for all other nominees.    

Since assuming the Presidency, Trump has been active in implementing the very same policies that he discussed during his campaign. While many of these policy approaches may be unpopular among certain members of society, the majority of Americans recognize that these policies are critical to ensuring the functioning and long-term prosperity of our democracy. Not only has President Trump instituted a travel ban that will ensure that this country remains safe, but he also has taken a substantial amount of steps to ensure that our country and its manufacturing jobs will remain. Ultimately, while the Times may not agree with these policies, Trump is following through honestly on what he was democratically elected to do. It’s time for the New York Times, to start acting like a newspaper and not the opposition party.