New York Times reporter Peter Baker was scolded by liberals on Thursday when he attempted to explain why President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power didn’t result in a more prominent front page story.
“For anyone wondering about today's print front page, Trump's comments refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power came late in the day, after initial deadlines, so it was a scramble just to get the story into the physical paper before the presses ran,” Baker wrote.
“Alas, print papers are still limited by old factory realities, and deadlines are even earlier now because of covid. But the story has been leading our home page and phone app all day because it is an important story. And the vast bulk of our readers get our news online these days,” he added in a follow-up tweet.
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he would have to “see what happens” with election results before committing to a peaceful transfer of power.
After a reporter asked the president: “Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” Trumped deferred, repeating his unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting could lead to widespread voter fraud.
“We're going to have to see what happens," Trump said during the White House news conference. "You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster."
Needless to say, Gray Lady readers weren’t happy that the story wasn’t prominent on the paper’s front page and didn’t buy Baker’s explanation.
The Times has long been accused of favoring Democrats and is regularly mocked as “failing” by Trump himself, but that didn’t stop Baker’s followers from accusing the paper of covering for the president. Many responses included vulgar language, while others claimed the paper would have stopped the presses if the news was damning to a powerful Democrat.
“No one believes you,” one critic responded.
Baker declined to comment when reached by Fox News.
Many apparent liberals took to Twitter to condemn his explanation: