© AFP/Emmanuel Dunand
The paper, which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, sent a letter to readers November 11 in which it promised to "rededicate" itself to its journalistic mission and asked subscribers to remain loyal.
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and editor Dean Baquet certainly seemed to be sounding a reflective note in the letter, admitting, "After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump's sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?"
Comment: Sulzberger and Baquet ought to read the scathing critique of their newspaper from one of their former employees - maybe they'll learn something:
Damning: Veteran reporter exposes The New York Times' arrogant, disconnected, agenda driven approach to journalism
One might wonder whether that last question should have been asked during the campaign, not after.
They continued: "As we reflect on this week's momentous result ... 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 ..."
Not that the paper would admit that it hadn't been doing that, of course. "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign," Sulzberger and Baquet said. "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."
Comment: If its the same then it'll be mostly lies! Do they want to be objective or don't they?!
If New York Post columnist and former New York Times reporter Michael Goodwin is to be believed, that level of fairness and independence ain't much.
"Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn't need to rededicate itself to honest reporting," he wrote Friday. "And it wouldn't have been totally blindsided by Trump's victory. Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump's supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn't have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."
The Times also sent a note to its staff the same day, asking employees to reflect on the paper's vision "to cover the news without fear or favor" and insisting that journalists approach the new Trump administration without bias.
"We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly. We will bring expert analysis and thoughtful commentary to the changes we see in government, and to their ramifications on the ground. We will look within and beyond Washington to explore the roots of the anger that has roiled red and blue America. If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let's make it our job to interpret and explain," Sulzberger exhorted staff.
Such efforts might have been very useful during the campaign.
In its endorsement of Clinton, the Times wrote "In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway."
When someone talks good sense and other are moved to attack them because of it, very often all the happens is the attackers put their true colours on show for all to see, and whatever happens, happens.
But it takes a really tough smart guy to navigate through all of that.
"Malamati" - The Way of Blame.
The Malāmatiyya (ملامتية) or Malamatis were a Muslim mystic group active in 9th century Greater Khorasan. Their root word of their name is the Arabic word malāmah (ملامة) "blame". The Malamatiyya believed in the value of self-blame, that piety should be a private matter and that being held in good esteem would lead to worldly attachment. They concealed their knowledge and made sure their faults would be known, reminding them of their imperfection. The Malamati is one for whom the doctrine of "spiritual states" is fraught with subtle deceptions of the most despicable kind; he despises personal piety, not because he is focused on the perceptions or reactions of people, but as a consistent involuntary witness of his own "pious hypocrisy".
"Malamati" can also refer to a method of teaching within Sufism based on taking blame.