It just could be that Michelle Goldberg does not read the business section of the propaganda sheet she writes for.  The only other explanation is that she intentionally ignored the miscalculation of Times colleague Jeremy W. Peters.  How else to explain Ms. Goldberg's lead paragraph in her April 25 column, "Justice for Tucker Carlson"?  (Online title: "Tucker Carlson's Great Replacement.")

Behold:

When Fox settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million, the conventional wisdom was that it would alter little about the way Fox News operates. 'Don’t Expect Fox News to Change After Massive Dominion Payout,' said a Vanity Fair headline. 'Will Fox Settlement Alter Conservative Media? Apparently Not,' said The Associated Press.

Clearly, the Times propagandist chided Vanity Fair and The Associated Press for their cloudy predictions that, post–Dominion settlement, the future of Fox News will not be affected.

But was The Times itself any clearer in predicting Fox matters?  Not at all.

The byline for Jeremy W. Peters appeared on the first Business page at The Times, April 24, for an article headlined: "After Lawsuit, Fox Is Unlikely To See Change."  (The online headline for the Peters article was "A Chastened, Humbled Fox News? Don't Count on It.")  Inside the print edition, a few paragraphs down the first column, Peters wrote, "In the immediate term, Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch seems unlikely to make any major changes at any of his Fox properties."

Is this bald-faced assertion from Goldberg's Times colleague any less cloudy than the wrong predictions on Fox from Vanity Fair and the AP?  Of course not.  In word, thought, and report, The New York Times was as askew as other media sources in predicting Fox matters, but Michelle Goldberg airbrushed the Peters miscalculation.

Arguably, it is likely that Michelle Goldberg did not want to embarrass the news side of the Times, which the editorial board insists is quite separate from the opinion side.  If so, Goldberg's cover-up of the inaccurate prediction from Peters puts into serious question the masthead claim of The Times to provide "'All the News That's Fit to Print."  The motto would be accurate to proclaim, "All the Propaganda That Doesn't Embarrass the Owners of This Sheet."

The concluding paragraph of Ms. Goldberg's April 25 column also deserves notice for its mention of the Fox "text messages exposed by Dominion."  When will the internal Times text messages be exposed to reveal to the public the abcs (astoundingly biased communications) that reflect the propagandist and elitist mindset of the New York Times owners, management, and staffers?

Image: Adam Jones via Flickr (cropped).