So you’ve become inured to Trump’s rhetoric and you won’t report on it? But only in this case? I still get the Sunday NYT, but lately just go straight to the Times magazine (now called “T”, but I’ll ignore it) to do the puzzles and check out some of the articles. Got rid of your ombudsman, keep experimenting with stupid crap, hired the guy from LA Times–piece of crap now goes to WSJ (which has a paywall) to cry about this.
F*ck you
Although the Times decided against reporting on Trump’s treason accusation — an editorial decision that Sulzberger said is “a sign of how inured we’ve grown to such rhetorical recklessness” — Sulzberger argued that it “crosses a dangerous line in the President’s campaign against a free and independent press.”
If only you were, you know, the publisher of one of the biggest and most important newspapers in the country and could do something about that particular decision.
Alas, it appears that publishers, like Republican Senators, are completely powerless.
But her emails, A.G.
You tell ‘im Sulzy. This is sure to get results!
(Maybe you should have published this a couple of years ago.)
In your own paper. . .
Try pointing out stuff that “crosses a dangerous line”… always works for Susan Collins.
In an admirable effort to retain the NYT’s bipartisan bona fides, Sulzberger voices Republican very serious concerns in a Democratic sternly worded letter. We conflate, you decide™.
“And there was great head-shaking and tut-tutting across the journalistic landscape…”
I have no sympathy for the propaganda rag that empowered Judith Miller to lie us into a war that killed my son.
The same propaganda rag that published endless lies about Hillary.
NYT? Is that still even a thing? Other than a high end bird cage liner / fish wrap?
Hopefully this editorial also included a stern warning: Mr. Trump, if you do not stop with these reckless claims, we may have to take the drastic step of actually reporting those claims in our newspaper. Consider yourself warned!
Fuck you, Pinche. YOU AND YOUR FATHER are a big part of the reason that the Traitor-in-Chief is in the Oval Office. “But her e-mails,” you fucking traitor? It was all fun and games when you and dear old Dad were getting your hate on regarding Hillary. It’s not as if you didn’t have MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OF WARNING ABOUT HOW TRUMP WOULD BE ONCE HE GOT ACTUAL POWER.
Yeah, I’m pissed
Palatable sarcasm surpassed TPM previous record.
Way back when, during my early childhood my dad took the Times while my mom’s cousin who lived with us took the Daily News. As kids, we would always grab the News because 1) they had funnies and the Times didn’t; 2) the sports coverage was easy to find (start on the back page). Once, I asked my mom’s cousin why the Times didn’t have funnies. He said, “why have funnies? - that whole rag is one big joke.”
So it “crosses a dangerous line in the President’s campaign against a free and independent press.”
No worries. Nancy tells us she feels sorry for Trump, prays for him, and is hoping for a family intervention.
Never mind protecting and defending the Constitution.
along with…
The NY Times initial response was more appropriate. The best way to get back at a narcissist is to ignore them. And frankly his dumb tweet was very ignoreable. This hand wringing just provides the comment further legitimacy and lets Trump know that he trolled them good.
To borrow a phrase from Josh Marshall, this is a “classic Timesian piece” albeit in the WSJ which has now rendered itself “Timesish.”
You do know, of course, that this means an angry letter to The Times?