Well, it may be a dangerous accusation according to the NYT publisher, but at least it’s not Shadowy like Hillary, right?
9 Likes
In all fairness, he was waiting for the paper’s Whitewater Investigation to play itself out before criticizing Trump directly.
9 Likes
Actual daily Times subscriber checking in. The magazine prints every weekend and has the puzzles. The “T” magazine comes every month or so on thicker paper and focuses on items of interest to the One Percent (fashion, furniture, exotic locales).
Regarding “experimenting with stupid crap”: The magazine from time to time will also “sponsor” special sections printed in full sized regular newsprint. I find these additions to the regular paper delightful and have to be seen to be believed.
3 Likes
The shadows and penumbras of Trump’s reckless behavior are very scary. I am sorry but Trump is largely a product of the New York Times hit job on Hillary Clinton. This guy doesn’t have any standing to complain now.
8 Likes
in pursuit of the Perfect. you try Try to destroy any good jeez your either a God or an immature child
2 Likes
I used to think that the NYT was bothsiding everything in the name of laziness and cowardice, but, now, it looks like a bottom line issue. Battling with Trump in front of the cameras is one thing, but a Dem in the WH would be a financial calamity for the NYT.
1 Like
Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
Project, project, project… fixed it for him:
Anything goes with my Corrupt Administration today. I will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! I am a true coward and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
2 Likes
Dark storm clouds are gathering around Trump. The Times, having thundered, is threatening to rain on Trump’s parade. Will he be struck down by the rthymic rebukes of Maureen Dowd, or jocularly mocked by Gail Collins, or put in his place by mean Millenial Michelle Goldberg, or will our entire civilization be tut-tutted by David Brooks? Or will they be restrained by their resident experts on The Left, Brett Stephens and Ross Douthat? Perhaps a blast from Blow or another taxicab midrash by Friedman on how Trump is flattening our moral universe? However it happens, Bruni will see to it that it is done with civility and Krugman will supply the charts and Kristof will be out there in the gale and rising waters to give us a first hand account of the horror.
12 Likes
Too bad you need to subscribe to Murdoch’s rag to see the editorial.
13 Likes
Thank you–corrected about the “T” special issues. Glad you enjoy your daily delivery, and I must say that their customer service when the paper is late or not delivered has improved dramatically, especially if you speak with a live person.
He was so resolute in his objection to Trump’s attack on the media that he had his opinion published in someone else’s newspaper!
Maybe he didn’t want to offend journalistic stalwarts like Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss by printing it in the Times. Or maybe he has another 380,000 words to print about Hillary’s email server and just didn’t have the column space. Or maybe he has a few more stories about Whitewater left over from the '90s!
6 Likes
Can’t read it. Behind a paywall.
Frustrating, since I’m a full-on 7-dead-trees-a-week, NYT subscriber.
Maybe subscribers will some day read what their publisher wrote.
Not holding my breath.
4 Likes
Well, here I am to say that I also subscribe daily and Sunday, and agree customer service is fine. Not going to try to combat the cynicism that even the mention of the newspaper stirs up here but will only point out there is coverage today of the UN report of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi which puts the blame squarely on MBS.
So now I’ll turn my attention to the really important news about trumPP saying things about Warren.
@kelleyw Seven day a week subscriber and I can’t access WSJ either. But this is some of it at WaPo.
@dommyluc Because you’re so concerned and in the hope your knickers will become untwisted.
Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew the word’s history as a weapon wielded by tyrants to justify the persecution and execution of enemies. They made its definition immutable—Article III reads: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort”—to ensure that it couldn’t be abused by politicians for self-serving attacks on rivals or critics. The crime is almost never prosecuted, but Mr. Trump has used the word dozens of times.
“Having already reached for the most incendiary language available, what is left but putting his threats into action?”
“Mr. Trump’s campaign against journalists should concern every patriotic American. A free, fair and independent press is essential to our country’s strength and vitality and to every freedom that makes it great."
7 Likes
He was targeting the RWNJ base, who read the WSJ editorial page because it’s so conservative.
Those people never would read it in the NYT.
13 Likes
He wasn’t appealing to any of the progressives here who hate trumPP but hate this newspaper more. WSJ is for the right wingers who read about trumPP.
5 Likes
You seem to be irrationally angry and, as others have pointed out, misinformed about the actual content and layout of the NYT. I am sorry you feel that way. The newspaper business isn’t easy these days and the NYT is still a good paper.
In any case, I would guess that the decision to publish the editorial in the WSJ was a strategic decision and, in my humble opinion, a smart one. Instead of publishing it in their own paper, they had to convince another paper’s editors that tRump’s attack on the NYT is dangerous to the press in general. That gives the editorial more intellectual heft, IMHO. Also, publishing the editorial in a paper as notoriously conservative as the WSJ makes Sulzberger’s opinion harder to dismiss and helps to ensure that the editorial will be seen by the people who need to see it (i.e., conservatives who tend to support tRump).
11 Likes
You’re correct in thinking the decision probably was probably as @thunderclapnewman suggested an appeal to those right wingers who read WSJ and will read about their hero. But who doesn’t prefer the daily dose of trumPP’s wit and wisdom and tweets that we get here at TPM to hard news reporting from NYT as well as WaPo.
1 Like
If the moron in the WH knew how to string coherent sentences he could have written your screed. But you forgot to mention Maggs who’s responsible for so much what is wrong with this country. As well as Vanessa Friedman who gives people wrong headed advice on how to dress. Not to mention A.O. Scott who loves all the bad movies.
4 Likes
Yeah, that struck me as odd, too. Does he think he’s getting specific administration or senate eyeballs in the WSJ that he doesn’t in NYT? And even if he does, does he think it would really make a difference to anyone there?
1 Like
At least my dad will read it as it’s in the WSJ. It’s the only “safe paper” he can read these days.
2 Likes