You were saying about “agenda driven”?
I think this is the relevant "agenda" piece.
Duranty wrote for the NYT through 1936 and continued as a special reporter until 1940.
Quoting from the same article "The concern over Duranty's reporting on the famine in Soviet Ukraine led to a move to posthumously and symbolically strip him of the Pulitzer Prize he received in 1932.
In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,[6] The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times. In a scathing piece, Meyer said (24 June 1990) that Duranty's articles were "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." Duranty, Meyer said, had bet his career on Stalin's rise and "strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes."[13] The Pulitzer Board in 1990 reconsidered the prize but decided to preserve it as awarded.[31] Four years earlier, in a review of Robert Conquest's The Harvest of Sorrow (1986), former Moscow bureau reporter Craig Whitney wrote that Duranty effectively ignored the famine until it was almost over.
In 2003, following an international campaign by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, and The New York Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty's work as a whole. Von Hagen found Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away."[32] The Times sent von Hagen's report to the Pulitzer Board and left it to the Board to take whatever action they considered appropriate.[33] In a letter accompanying the report, The New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. called Duranty's work "slovenly" and said it "should have been recognized for what it was by his editors and by his Pulitzer judges seven decades ago."
So, what agenda is relevant? Looks to me like the Times did the right thing. When can we expect Faux, Breitbart et al to do the right things and denounce and repudiate Trump?
