Someone should write a piece entitled: “The New York Times, Finally Explained”....some 800 word essay which describes a weak marginalized newspaper without much going for it except some 100-year old legend status....attached to a Titanic-like publication that hit the iceberg and is in a year-by-year sinking period.
All of their reporters and journalists have lost their prospective on the nation and can’t really write much....so they continually go back to lobbyists and front-groups....asking for text that they can copy and paste.
As for investigative reporting? They haven’t done much of that since the 1980s, and even then....it was the powerful stuff you’d expect out of some Portland or Boise newspaper.
So New York Times, what does it say about the rest of the media and political establishment, both Republican and Democrat, that a “dunce” could defeat the best candidates either party could muster and even swat away everything the media had in its arsenal?
A stupid man doesn’t run a multi-billion dollar business venture and he doesn’t know how win an election.
Trump did both - this is one of the stupidest op-eds to grace the New York Times.
Its also funny as hell - not in the contempt for Trump but that the fact liberals are dismissive of Trump.
Remember, these are the same people wasting $20 million in trying to unseat him through forced vote recounts and electoral college hi jinks.
As usual, they’re trying have it both ways. Hypocrites.
“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.
Your comment that there is a need for an article called... New York Times explained... Is a very good idea. This article just expands Hillary’s comment that trumps supporters are deplorable and adds that Donald Trump himself is deplorable. The analogy that Donald Trump should be thought of as a dog who can’t remember anything is typical of the misunderstanding by the left of Trump. Actually, Often Trump starts with an issue where he has little background, says something and then learns more about the issue and gives a more reflected opinion. He is the only candidate of the 20 or so total candidates for president who actually acknowledged that he changed his mind!
Imagine if someone were to say that Obama was like a sneaky dog that stole everybody’s food. After all, didn’t Obama take vacations that cost us millions and millions of dollars and didn’t he say that we could all keep our health plans when he knew that we couldn’t? Isn’t that kind of sneaky?
wouldn’t comparing Obama to a dog be considered highly racist?
There is quite a double standard here.