Did I miss the news about President Trump vowing to shut down CNN or the New York Times? Of course, that didn’t happen.
So what is the editorial board talking about?
[A]t a campaign-rally style event on Saturday, Trump used the bully pulpit to try to bully the news media, which he said included some “very dishonest people.”
So what?
A free press is not a press that is immune from criticism.
A free press is not a press that is immune from criticism.
On the contrary, disagreement is the corollary of freedom.
And we all know that the press has monolithically opposed President Trump, accusing him of dishonesty and worse. As the editorial board did in its very next sentence:
But it was actually Trump who lied about the “failing New York Times” — subscriptions have surged since the election — claiming the paper apologized because its campaign forecasts were “so bad.” In fact, no apology was issued.
Is the New York Times failing?
That is a matter of opinion, and the fact that “subscriptions have surged since the election” doesn’t answer the question.
That is a matter of opinion, and the fact that “subscriptions have surged since the election” doesn’t answer the question.
The Times has conducted one layoff after another, as declining revenues have forced personnel cuts.
And this chart shows the New York Times share price from 2001 to the present:
Is the Times failing?
As I said, that is a matter of opinion, but it violates all norms of journalism for the editorial board to say that Trump “lied” in expressing that judgment.
Did the Times apologize for its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign?
That, too, is a judgment call.
The paper’s publisher and editor sent a letter to its readers on November 13, 2016, that can be read as a mea culpa.
That is how the New York Post saw it.
(“The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.”)..."
Lots here, read on!
That, too, is a judgment call.
The paper’s publisher and editor sent a letter to its readers on November 13, 2016, that can be read as a mea culpa.
That is how the New York Post saw it.
(“The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.”)..."
Lots here, read on!
No comments:
Post a Comment