On Monday night, investigative journalist Sara Carter appeared on “Hannity” and recalled some wise advice she had once received from the editor of the small newspaper in California where she got her start. He told her the following:

You don’t shape a narrative. You let the story come to you. As an investigator, you go out, you see it, you collect the evidence and then you report it to the American people or to the local community that I was covering.

This is journalism. And I suppose there was a time when the New York Times practiced it. Over time, however, the newspaper gradually moved away from journalism and began to embrace activism. Certainly, their coverage of the Russian collusion story over the last several years is evidence of this shift. Still, the Times tried to keep up the pretense that they were journalists.

After executive editor Dean Baquet’s comments to newsroom staff were leaked to Slate and then to the public last Thursday, it became clear that the paper of record has abandoned journalism. Instead of journalists, they are now activists.

As activists, they have an agenda. Currently, they have two goals. First, they want to paint President Trump as a racist. Second, through what they call the “1619 Project,” the newspaper hopes to “reframe America’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote that the basic thrust of the 1619 project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. He explains:

The essays go on to cover the economy (“If you want to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.”), the food we eat (“The sugar that saturates the American diet has a barbaric history as the ‘white gold’ that fueled slavery.”), the nation’s physical health (“Why doesn’t the United States have universal healthcare? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War.”), politics (“America holds onto an undemocratic assumption from its founding: that some people deserve more power than others.”), daily life (“What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot.”), and much more.

The Times even claims one of the reasons our founders fought the Revolutionary War was to protect slavery. I guess when an editor openly admits that his plan is to “reframe history,” a certain amount of liberty with the truth is implied and should be expected.

So Baquet assembled his troops to pass on the new narrative. He told his staff:

Race in the next year and I think, to be frank, what I hope you come away from this discussion with – race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration.

Sounds like he’s shaping the news to me.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the new New York Times. And, given their enormous influence over the rest of the mainstream media, I suppose the rest of the press will hop on the bandwagon.

Newt Gingrich appeared on “Fox and Friends” to weigh in on this travesty.

The whole project is a lie. Look, I think slavery is a terrible thing. I think putting slavery in context is important. We still have slavery in places around the world today, so we need to recognize this is an ongoing story. I think certainly if you’re an African-American, slavery is at the center of what you see as the American experience. But for most Americans, most of the time, there were a lot of other things going on. There were several hundred thousand white Americans who died in the Civil War in order to free the slaves. I saw one reference that the New York Times claims that the American Revolution was caused, in part, to defend slavery. That is such historically, factually false nonsense that it is embarrassing the New York Times is doing this. But, if you saw the recent leaked interview town hall meeting with the New York Times editor, he basically said, look, “We blew it on Russian collusion, now we’re going to go to racism, that’s our new model, the next two years will be Trump and racism.” This is a tragic decline of the New York Times into a propaganda paper worthy of Pravda.

(Relevant segment begins at 1:48)

Political strategist and author Jeffrey Lord also appeared on Hannity and addressed this story. “Sean, what the New York Times is engaged in is the Stalinizing of American history…The left wanted to do a total rewrite of American history and remake the story that we’re founded in racism. It’s all about race.”

(Relevant segment starts at 35:00)

Conservative talk show hosts and their guests are outraged by this latest revelation. We’ve known all along that the mainstream media led by the New York Times and other large outlets such as CNN and MSNBC were advancing a bogus narrative to damage President Trump. But now, we have an editor assembling his staff and actually dictating marching orders. The New York Times has issued a call to action.

The most important question of all is, what do the American people think about this? I would imagine those on the far left will support it. But what about the ones who truly matter, the independents? Now that this plan has been exposed, I don’t see any way this can end well for the once great newspaper.

This is no longer journalism.