Newt Gingrich: Seven questions for the New York Times

Fox News ^ | November 16, 2016 | Newt Gingrich

[monkapotamus]

The paper wrote stories that were unrelentingly hostile to Trump and his supporters...

It published stories about Trump in which it distorted the accounts of interviewees, according to the subjects’ own testimony...

And now the same publisher and the same editor that oversaw this partisan assault are promising to “rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly”. Perhaps even the paper’s liberal readership has tired of reporting that increasingly resembles the state-controlled propaganda of totalitarian regimes...

Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?

Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?..

Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations--featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?

[rightwingextremist1776]

F the NYT

[Uncle Miltie]

Fake News like The New York Times and CNBC: http://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-new-york-times-reporter-john-harwood-sought-guidance-from-clinton-camp-on-questions-for-jeb-bush/

Fake News like ABC: http://lidblog.com/wikileaks-team-clinton-fed-abcs-stephanopoulos-talking-points-to-attack-clinton-cash-author/

Fake News like Politico: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/10/18/politico-reporter-admits-hes-hack-clinton-campaign-leaked-e-mails

Fake News like the New York Times Magazine: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213

Fake News like the Washington Post: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5315

Fake News like The New York Times: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-caught-providing-bill-clinton-questions-before-interview/

Fake News like CNN: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-donna-brazile-fed-team-hillary-debate-questions/

[MountainWalker]

Hope he uses his first SOTU address to rip them a new one.

[showme_the_Glory]

They lost! Again. ESAD NYT.

[Parley Baer]

Newt is being to kind to the NYT. They lost whatever shred of journalism they had a long time ago. They are nothing more than an extension of the DNC.

[immadashell]

Fiction by MSNBC.

[Maceman]

I’m very interested in seeing to whom Trump will grant White House press credentials going forward.

Will he deny them to the NYT, Washington Post, CNN and other MSM “reporters”?

In the 2020 election cycle, will he absolutely refuse to allow any MSM members to be debate moderators?

[xzins]

The truth is that I have bought ANY paper copy newspaper in years and years. I cannot remember the last time.

Nor have I bought any hard copy news magazine.

Nor have I EVER paid for an online news site.

So, if there are many like me, the NYT is really, really screwed.

[Hugin]

The NYT still proudly displays the Pulitzer they got for Wslter Duranty’s stories denying the Ukrainian genocide. If they want to gain some semblance of “journalistic integrity” they could start by giving them back.

[TruthWillWin]

And I have never bought bottled water...

[xzins]

Probably smart of you.

[xzins]

CORRECTION: “The truth is that I have NOT bought ANY paper copy newspaper in years and years. I cannot remember the last time.”

[HarleyD]

Wow!!! I wonder if the new Google and YaHoo search engines that are suppose to weed out fake stories will eliminate the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and Washington Post?

[Freemeorkillme]

So nobody has to violate the long standing prohibition on reading the source /s

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?

2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?

3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?

4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?

5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation—such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?

6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?

7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations—featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[Eric in the Ozarks]

President Trump could be more ‘selective’ about who are invited to his news conferences...

[Ohioan]

The Times has trashed journalistic integrity for the better part of a century; but the recent election has taken the biased daily to a new low; truly something parallel to the press in a monolithic tyranny, such as the Soviet or Nazi.

Clearly integrity & honor are not appreciated at the Times. Loyalty---or even simple respect--to or for traditional American values, such as those that motivated the Trump campaign, are not appreciated at the Times.

[Ohioan]

You assume that they have any respect for the rights of distinct peoples to preserve distinct heritages. Much that seemed to motivate them, eighty some years later, shows a very clear hatred for our desire to preserve the heritage of the Founding Fathers in America.

They are truly despicable, any way you slice it.

[pepsi_junkie]

And now the same publisher and the same editor that oversaw this partisan assault are promising to “rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly”.

This is all a game. See, recall in years past when the MSM barely covered a GOP convention and then in the face of criticism said "you are right, we should have given more coverage" and then used that as an excuse to cover the Dem convention gavel to gavel. Can't blame them, they were responding to critics!

Well now it's "during the election people said we weren't aggressive and tough enough. Well we hear you and we rededicate ourselves to that. We'll be tougher and more aggressive on Trump than any previous President ever." That's what they mean.