“The New York Times, Finally Explained”
Do you remember “Joseph Goebbels”? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0324305/ It was a documentary movie about a propaganda master who woke up every morning dreaming about how he could rewrite the events of the day that went before to increase the power of the socialist state.
I am thinking it’s the perfect New York Times analogy.
In the past, I’ve always presumed that when the Times completely changed its position on health care or the Mexican wall or nuclear weapons in Japan, it was due to craven political opportunism. But it’s much more calming to work under the assumption that liberals don’t remember anything that happened before this morning if they have been told to forget.
Think about it next time you hear a NYT writer criticizing President Trump as racist for wanting a border wall: “racism and xenophobia and fear of those dark people who don’t talk like us.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/the-wall-is-a-fantasy.html In 2006, when Hillary Clinton voted for the 700 mile border fence, the NYT criticized the fence as not long enough. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30cong.html
It’s stupendously irritating, unless you work under the assumption that liberals accept whatever their approved propaganda organ says today and no longer recall the real story.
All month, the NYT was trying to revive Hillary’s defeated campaign in every story, where anything President Trump does is automatically wrong, even if the NYT supported it when Biden, Hillary, or another liberal did the same thing. President Trump made a mistake talking with the Taiwanese leader, President Trump will be unable to repeal Obamacare, President Trump has seduced and betrayed Americans, President Trump’s trade policies will hurt Americans, and President Trump is choosing the wealthy for his cabinet – all of that at the top of their online front page today. http://www.nytimes.com/
I wonder if the NY Times is being sarcastic, because this ship has sailed. The election was weeks ago, and President Trump won.
But no, the NYT is still cheering for the recount efforts and for faithless electors. Even after a month ago claiming that refusing to accept election results was tantamount to treason.
What a surprise for NYT! Who then felt they needed to deliver, and then made a call to failed fringe candidate Jill Stein.
Nobody believes Stein’s story about having concerns about hacking of voting machines that are not even online. No American election with as large a margin as President Trump received has ever been overturned in a recount, not that facts matter to the liberal newspaper of record for all coordinated propaganda efforts.
But the bottom line is that this formerly great paper is entirely a creature of the far left fringe. So much so that its writers had no problem wiping numerous well publicized campaign positions from their memory the second the election results were in.
From now on I’m going to try to think of their ethics as a little bit like my dog, Spot. Spot was wonderful and loyal, but she died 40 years ago.
When you read Trump stories on the NYT front page, or their many future anti-Trump editorials, keep reminding yourself that they’re reserving the right to forget everything they have said as soon as they are proven wrong. Their ethics died 40 years ago and are completely forgotten by almost everyone. No way we can believe the Times long term. All the news that’s fit – they no longer print.
“When you read Trump stories on the NYT front page, or their many future anti-Trump editorials, keep reminding yourself that they’re reserving the right to forget everything they have said as soon as they are proven wrong. Their ethics died 40 years ago and are completely forgotten by almost everyone. No way we can believe the Times long term. All the news that’s fit – they no longer print.”
Your whole comment is very well stated. Enjoyed reading it.
Good points.
My focus is the liberals’ need to believe they are more intelligent than conservatives. Just one example: A few years ago, at a dinner of sports professionals, I had to listen to the rantings of a 25 year-old Obama supporter who castigated me for believing in our Second Amendment. She raised her voice over the table, interrupting me from my socratic questioning. The rest at the table simply smiled in agreement with her. I was 64 years-old at the time.
Remember when Obama totally lost his train of thought while speaking in 08? His followers cheered him! Liberals are not stupid, no matter how foolish they are.
The NYT will constantly attack Trump’s intelligence — they must. It pays the bills for the newspaper; objective reporting would not.