Quite a portrait: The New York Times and E. Jean Carroll
Three days following E. Jean Carroll's unsurprising courtroom victory over former president Donald J. Trump in deep-blue Manhattan (for Biden more than 86%), The New York Times ran a story, May 12, requiring input from three reporters, on the possibility that Carroll might again sue Mr. Trump for defamation, based on his remarks in the CNN town hall, denying his encounter with Carroll. This would be the third defamation suit brought by Carroll against Trump. Her suit for remarks made by Trump while president, denying the alleged encounter, is pending.
This observer was drawn to the image of Carroll that accompanied the May 12 three-reporter story, as much as to the "here we go again" headline for the story: "Carroll May Sue Trump Over His CNN Diatribe." (The online headline was slightly softer: "E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time Afer 'Vile' Comment on CNN.") The image covered three columns, in color, with the pose in portrait-like fashion, plus a repetition of Carroll's account of her encounter with Mr. Trump — years ago. What is going on, if anything, between The Times, leading organ of anti-Trump propaganda, and former opinion columnist Carroll, the leading exponent, at present, of anti-Trump narratives? Clearly, the Carroll image was not necessary to accompany the related article, much less in color and over so large an area of the page.
The full image is much larger than this fair use sample. Credit: NYT.
At The New York Times, the moral of this story is, plenty of space for images of a Trump-hater, but no room to report news from Congress pointing to improper conduct by President Biden, as to receiving foreign funds — and using the CIA and FBI to prevent a Trump second term.
Add to the list of assaults on sportsmanship by Biden and his media sycophants the refusal of Trump-hating lawyer Mark F. Pomerantz to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee, May 12, in a deposition agreed to, last month, by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg — or did Bragg mean that he agreed that Pomerantz would appear at the deposition without testifying? Bragg's political indictment of the former president obviously needs to be removed with dispatch and placed before U.S. judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who encouraged the Pomerantz deposition in the first place. And let's see how The Times figures out a way to use removal of the Bragg indictment to federal court as peg for more images of the 79-year old Carroll.