Last week on MSNBC, the “Morning Joe” pundits were talking about Donald Trump’s latest scheme to con the rubes, his sale of Trump Watches.
Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times’ Washington bureau chief, told her fellow panelists: “He’s entertaining. Let’s not forget.”
But he’s not entertaining, Elisabeth. He’s frightening.
[…]
Time after time, the New York Times sands off the sharp edges of Trumpism:
-
The Times described JD Vance’s denunciation of “childless cat ladies” and his lie about Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats as “combative conservatism” when it’s really sexism and racism.
-
When Trump posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,” the Times toned that down with a headline saying he “expressed disdain” for her.
-
When top Republicans lied about Haitian immigrants, the Times’ headline said “Republicans Seize on False Theories” as if those theories came out of the ether instead of originating and being spread by the pro-Trump right wing.
-
Early in the pet-eating hoax, the Times wrote this headline: “JD Vance Appears to Backtrack on False Claim About Haitian Migrants in Ohio.” But that was an embarrassing misreading of what Vance did. The correct headline would have been: “Vance Says Claim About Haitian Migrants May Be Hoax, but Urges People to Spread It Anyway.” That’s what he did. Three weeks later, Vance still hasn’t disavowed the lie and apologized.
-
This past weekend, the Times wrote a ridiculously warm-and-fuzzy mentor-protege story about Trump and Vance, making them seem like Dumbledore and Harry Potter when they’re more like Dr. Evil and Mini-me. (Or not fictional characters at all, but real-life fascists.)
NYT are the original genocide deniers and Zionists regime whores too 🤡
In 1932, Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, eleven of which were published in June 1931. He was later criticized for his subsequent denial of the widespread famine (1930–1933) in the USSR,[1] most particularly the Holodomor. Beginning in 1990, there were calls for the Pulitzer board to revoke Duranty’s prize. The Pulitzer Board declined to revoke the award and in 2003 said the articles which it examined in making the award did not contain “clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception”.[2]
Those articles about widespread rape on Oct 7 still haven’t been retracted despite no evidence of such.
It’s just that the NYT isn’t the progressive institution people wish it was. Its thing is old-fashioned liberalism that will say progressive-sounding things when nothing much is at stake, but will go quiet, or distract with “lifestyle” articles and vapid opinion pieces, when it matters.
Exactly.
It’s just another capitalist publication, out there to get you to read whatever inflammatory crap they print in order to sell ads.
There isn’t one atrocity committed by the US or its allies that the NYT wasn’t in full support of. The “paper of record” is essentially the main distribution channel for COINTELPRO style bullshit.
