Who has a bigger conflict of interest: Donald Trump or the New York Times?

I couldn't help but notice that nearly every day, the New York Times and other media organs are running attack pieces about Donald Trump's soon to be conflicts of interest because of his real estate holdings.  I find it astonishing that the media have only now become focused on potential conflicts of interest, since for years they had virtually nothing to say about Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state also was affiliated with a "non-profit foundation" that received donations from foreign countries she interacted with in an official capacity.

So I commend the Times for suddenly being concerned about ethics at the precise moment a Republican is elected president.  It very much reminds me of a vampire suddenly realizing it's night outside for the first time in eight years.  But I have a more immediate concern.  What about the conflict of interest at The New York Times?  Nearly 20,000,000 shares are held by Carlos Slim, the Mexican "megarich oligarch."

How can the Times fairly report on issues of sanctuary cities, or illegal immigration, or trade, or bilingual education, when its largest shareholder is a Mexican citizen?

Even worse, Carlos Slim is actually Lebanese in origin, from a country ruled by the radical Islamic group Hezb'allah in alliance with Maronite Christians (Slim is a Maronite Christian).  That raises a whole host of other issues.  How can the Times report honestly on the Middle East, on the war on Islamic terrorism, on events in Israel, Syria, Iraq, and related topics, when a Middle Easterner is their largest shareholder?  How are we to know that, by virtue of his large ownership stake, he isn't slanting their coverage?

The only solution, I think, is for the Times to buy back Carlos Slim's shares.  They probably don't have the money to do it, but since I'm sure they wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a total liquidation of Trump's real estate holdings, they should conform to the same standard, don't you think?

Normally, when a politician assumes office, he sells his stocks or put them in a blind trust.  It isn't so easy in Trump's case because he has a lot of real estate assets, many of which are illiquid and not easily sellable.  Nor are they easy to replace, as in the case of one buying or selling stocks.  Of course there will be conflicts of interest in his presidency, and I'm sure we will read about them every day.  But given the unusual nature of Trump's holdings and the difficulty of divesting, I think we can rely on an honest media to watch for potential abuses.

Or, if not an honest media, at least a dishonest media obsessed with destroying the president-elect in any way they can.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

I couldn't help but notice that nearly every day, the New York Times and other media organs are running attack pieces about Donald Trump's soon to be conflicts of interest because of his real estate holdings.  I find it astonishing that the media have only now become focused on potential conflicts of interest, since for years they had virtually nothing to say about Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state also was affiliated with a "non-profit foundation" that received donations from foreign countries she interacted with in an official capacity.

So I commend the Times for suddenly being concerned about ethics at the precise moment a Republican is elected president.  It very much reminds me of a vampire suddenly realizing it's night outside for the first time in eight years.  But I have a more immediate concern.  What about the conflict of interest at The New York Times?  Nearly 20,000,000 shares are held by Carlos Slim, the Mexican "megarich oligarch."

How can the Times fairly report on issues of sanctuary cities, or illegal immigration, or trade, or bilingual education, when its largest shareholder is a Mexican citizen?

Even worse, Carlos Slim is actually Lebanese in origin, from a country ruled by the radical Islamic group Hezb'allah in alliance with Maronite Christians (Slim is a Maronite Christian).  That raises a whole host of other issues.  How can the Times report honestly on the Middle East, on the war on Islamic terrorism, on events in Israel, Syria, Iraq, and related topics, when a Middle Easterner is their largest shareholder?  How are we to know that, by virtue of his large ownership stake, he isn't slanting their coverage?

The only solution, I think, is for the Times to buy back Carlos Slim's shares.  They probably don't have the money to do it, but since I'm sure they wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a total liquidation of Trump's real estate holdings, they should conform to the same standard, don't you think?

Normally, when a politician assumes office, he sells his stocks or put them in a blind trust.  It isn't so easy in Trump's case because he has a lot of real estate assets, many of which are illiquid and not easily sellable.  Nor are they easy to replace, as in the case of one buying or selling stocks.  Of course there will be conflicts of interest in his presidency, and I'm sure we will read about them every day.  But given the unusual nature of Trump's holdings and the difficulty of divesting, I think we can rely on an honest media to watch for potential abuses.

Or, if not an honest media, at least a dishonest media obsessed with destroying the president-elect in any way they can.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS