Trump vs. the NYT
The AP's July 29 story "Times Publisher asks Trump to re-consider anti-media rhetoric" reported:
The publisher of The New York Times said Sunday he "implored" President Donald Trump at a private White House meeting this month to reconsider his broad attacks on journalists, calling the president's anti-press rhetoric "not just divisive but increasingly dangerous."
Left out was any mention of the damage that media rhetoric is inflicting on President Trump, anyone associated with his administration, or the entire nation at large.
The duplicity of our elite media is a thing to behold. They use the cover of the First Amendment to defame Trump on a daily basis and don't think it's fair that Trump call them what they are: purveyors of fake news and the enemy of the American people. Perhaps the late Christopher Hitchens, in his Letters to a Young Contrarian, said it better:
Every day, the New York Times carries a motto in a box on its front page. "All the News That's Fit to Print..." It's been saying it for decades, day in and day out[.] ... I myself check every day to make sure that the bright, smug, pompous, idiotic claim is still there. Then I check to make sure that it still irritates me. If I can still exclaim, under my breath, why do they insult me and what do they take me for and what the hell is it supposed to mean ... then at least I know I still have a pulse.
Sadly, Hitchens didn't live to see the Washington Post's contribution to this smug and pompous (to borrow a couple of his words) folly – "Democracy Dies in Darkness" – upon the election of Donald Trump.
These rags slept through eight years of Barack Obama's assault on the Constitution and the "democratic norms" that Trump, they would have us believe, is raping and pillaging with reckless abandon, with nary a discouraging word. Today we get to witness the left-wing punditry and D.C. political class tremble in fear of the autocratic and dictatorial things Donald Trump might do while simultaneously whitewashing the autocratic things Barack Obama did do!
"The first 100 Days of Headlines Trump/Obama/Bush" is an interesting read. Perhaps a constructive endeavor would be for an enterprising young NYT journalist who must actually work for stories as opposed to sleeping with sources to prepare an unbiased scorecard of Mr. Trump's first year and a half's accomplishments relative to the promise glimpsed in Obama's first 100 days of cheerleading NYT headlines.
Then there's this: "Mueller Examining Trump's Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry."
The second paragraph speaks to the continuing pattern of "Deep State" leaks for no other purpose than to tarnish Trump and his team. It has driven the entire "Russian collusion" story from day one. The authors "cite" three sources but never name them. Trump and his confederates have been anonymously defamed via Ms. Haberman's "go-to public relations weapon," the barrage of Deep State leaks that go directly to the front pages of the nation's most influential newspapers.
As Glenn Greenwald (no alt-right zealot) reported at The Intercept at the time of the DNC "hack": Ms. Haberman has proven herself to be a worthy recipient of these "leaks." One wouldn't imagine much has changed:
One January 2015 strategy document – designed to plant stories on Clinton's decision-making process about whether to run for president – singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a "friendly journalist" who has "teed up" stories for them in the past and "never disappointed" them.
How much longer does Pinch Sulzberger expect this flavor of news reportage to work? Your dear "Old Gray Lady" has become little more than a well connected gossip rag staffed by the most unethical of reporters and has well earned Trump's accusation of "fake news."