It is important to remember that the New York Times bears a lot of responsibility for Trump's rise to prominence in the first place. They allowed themselves to be charmed into printing a several page puff piece about him in 1973, glorifying this privileged son of a grifting, racist real estate developer. Looking back, this was kind of …
It is important to remember that the New York Times bears a lot of responsibility for Trump's rise to prominence in the first place. They allowed themselves to be charmed into printing a several page puff piece about him in 1973, glorifying this privileged son of a grifting, racist real estate developer. Looking back, this was kind of a watershed moment in the 'glorify the rich' movement that snowballed and grew into the oligarchy we have today. Donald Trump had no special qualification to be getting news coverage or commenting on sociopolitical matters but the Times, Oprah, NY TV news and many others willingly and gladly gave him a platform to assist him in his self-glorification quest. I guess they thought he was interesting, or entertaining? I am NOT entertained. Why are people continually surprised that the New York Times does this type of stuff? Where does this paper get it's sterling reputation from? I mean, this is really the problem, isn't it? All you have to do is appear stately and/or intellectual and/or confident and you are ascribed some sort of honor and legitimacy.
all good pts, esp abt rise of Trump. As I’ve mentioned before it’s really the newspaper’s DC bureau that’s so disappointing these days. rest of the paper is often excellent
It is important to remember that the New York Times bears a lot of responsibility for Trump's rise to prominence in the first place. They allowed themselves to be charmed into printing a several page puff piece about him in 1973, glorifying this privileged son of a grifting, racist real estate developer. Looking back, this was kind of a watershed moment in the 'glorify the rich' movement that snowballed and grew into the oligarchy we have today. Donald Trump had no special qualification to be getting news coverage or commenting on sociopolitical matters but the Times, Oprah, NY TV news and many others willingly and gladly gave him a platform to assist him in his self-glorification quest. I guess they thought he was interesting, or entertaining? I am NOT entertained. Why are people continually surprised that the New York Times does this type of stuff? Where does this paper get it's sterling reputation from? I mean, this is really the problem, isn't it? All you have to do is appear stately and/or intellectual and/or confident and you are ascribed some sort of honor and legitimacy.
all good pts, esp abt rise of Trump. As I’ve mentioned before it’s really the newspaper’s DC bureau that’s so disappointing these days. rest of the paper is often excellent
Two words--Maureen Dowd??????