Posted on 05/16/2016 5:30:54 AM PDT by maggief
A woman who dated Donald Trump said early Monday that The New York Times "spun" her comments for an article about the presumptive presidential nominee's treatment of women, adding that he always treated her respectfully.
“He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way,” Rowanne Brewer Lane said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”
“He never offended me in any way,” the former model added. "He was very gracious. I saw him around all types of people, all types of women. He was very kind, thoughtful, generous. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump.” The New York Times on Sunday published an article documenting Trump’s past behavior with women.
The newspaper’s report said that the outspoken billionaire both nurtured women’s careers and demeaned their appearance, creating a “complex, at times contradictory portrait.”
Lane on Monday said that the Times had distorted her account of the time she spent as Trump’s companion.
“The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story I was telling would come across,” she said.
“They told me and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story come across in the way I was telling it and accurately. It absolutely was not. I don’t appreciate them making it look like it was a negative experience,” she added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The ‘word’ and promises of a liberal journalist comes straight from the mouth of Satan.
She didn’t exactly come across as a brain surgeon but I’m glad she pushed back. Why she spoke to them in the first place is beyond me.
What an amazing fail by the Hillary shilling New York Times! The liberal media really has no clue what they are up against and is in panic mode. They thought that they could bring out bill. That failed. Then they went to the ex wives. More failure. Now this. It is beyond a doubt that any other republican candidate would have fallen by now, but not this man. Excellent!
When are people going to learn???
Never, ever talk to the media.
Big media will only pay attention to you for one of two reasons:
1)To destroy you, or
2)To use you to destroy someone else.
Period. That’s it.
Bookmark
I saw the scribe interviewed on a morning show. He, and his Mr Potatohead glasses were spinning furiously.
Talking to the press is okay, if you make a line-in the-sand requirement that you be able to record the entire interview.
..The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure that my story I was telling would come across...the way I was telling it and accurately....
Any story on Trump by the NY Times, WAPO, and other similar media will be spun into a hit piece.
Well lookee how the NYTimes treats women.
Should not let this go.
Maybe the NYTimes should do some interviews with Bill’s victims that Hillary tried to destroy.
Or,the family members of Benghazi victims and the survivors.
Quote:
“When are people going to learn???
Never, ever talk to the media.
Big media will only pay attention to you for one of two reasons:
1)To destroy you, or
2)To use you to destroy someone else.
Period. That’s it.”
Absolutely 100% correct.
One other thing about the Media. If Trump had a homosexual instead of heterosexual background how he treated women, or anyone else, would not be an issue.
What did she expect? The NYT is a purveyor of leftist propaganda. It has no interest in truth or objectivity.
Point taken. In their 'defense,' however, I'll point out they are equal opportunity liars.
When Trump accuses and exposes the media of dishonesty and false reporting, the people absolutely love it. They know what’s really going on and what liars the left wing media is.
Its a good strategy for Trump. Nobody likes or believes the media.
Trump is set up to really shock GE voters in October. From what I’ve read about him (a lot), he has decades of being the opposite of what he’s been accused of (xenophobic, misogynist, racist, etc). And there are news reports from the times showing what he’s done for all the groups he “hates”.
After months of hearing how bad he is and media reports making a big deal out of nothings like a fake PR spokesperson he can run an ad blitz to make all of the attacks look bogus. Most voters won’t have been paying a lot of attention to then but will have heard some of the bad he’s accused of. Even valid attacks will look bogus and Hillary will have nothing left (can’t run on her record).
Proof (showing news from the 1980s and 1990s) that contradicts the accusations can change minds and get the media talking about him and his good deeds and fairness no matter how much they’s rather talk about how Hillary’s body parts make her the ideal candidate.
He’s a brilliant marketer/persuader and probably has better ideas but he has plenty of ammunition to destroy the attacks and make the media and opponents look like liars if he wants.
She was told that it would not be a hit piece... I wish others would come out.
Megyn Kelly ran with the article as did MSNBC etc. These guys like Woodward won’t go after the sleave rich life the Clinton’s? Unreal.
Well then why did you talk to them in the first place? Surely you knew something like this could happen.
Four cheers for the New York Times. Once again, they have confirmed the brilliance of my chosen Tag-Line.
Thanks, guys. (Now there will be an editorial as to how I omitted any thanks to the GALS, too.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.