The NYT has been criticized for its complicity in the spread of disinformation related to Trump for almost 5 years It's clear that they understand exactly what they are doing. The question is why a top newspaper would willingly tarnish its reputation and relinquish its role as the 4th rail of democracy. Their subscriptions have skyrocketed so it's easy to see why they ignore all criticism. Why do readers not only accept but embrace disinformation? It's the same question regarding why FB hasn't lost millions of users. People understand that they are using a platform that serves up propaganda, dangerous pseudo-science, and divisiveness, yet they take no action to curb a clear danger to democracy. Closing a FB account or canceling a NYT subscription are easy forms of protest, yet so few are willing to do even the minimum to save our country.
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.
Why should anyone expect the Times to treat Trump as the malignant narcissist that he is when, to this day, they refuse to acknowledge that how they treated Hillary Clinton in 2016 (and 2008, tbh) was truly deplorable? Pun 100% intended.
The NYT has been criticized for its complicity in the spread of disinformation related to Trump for almost 5 years It's clear that they understand exactly what they are doing. The question is why a top newspaper would willingly tarnish its reputation and relinquish its role as the 4th rail of democracy. Their subscriptions have skyrocketed so it's easy to see why they ignore all criticism. Why do readers not only accept but embrace disinformation? It's the same question regarding why FB hasn't lost millions of users. People understand that they are using a platform that serves up propaganda, dangerous pseudo-science, and divisiveness, yet they take no action to curb a clear danger to democracy. Closing a FB account or canceling a NYT subscription are easy forms of protest, yet so few are willing to do even the minimum to save our country.
The New York Times claims "All The News That's Fit To Print".
In reality it's "All The Talking Points Republicans Insist We Print".
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.
Why should anyone expect the Times to treat Trump as the malignant narcissist that he is when, to this day, they refuse to acknowledge that how they treated Hillary Clinton in 2016 (and 2008, tbh) was truly deplorable? Pun 100% intended.