NYT Attack on Trump Gets Outed as a Misrepresentation and Spin

[shady28]

Can you point to an entity that has criticized Trump that you believe to have done so from a place of integrity and objectivity?

There are plenty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-one-issue-gops-trump-sounds-democrat-122721412--election.html

http://time.com/4310104/donald-trump-foreign-policy-america-first-mayflower-speech/

Biggest thing these do is focus on facts, not name-calling.

NYT is a sensationalist rag now, as they and other MSM outlets struggle to survive they just publish click-bait.

 

[fskimospy]

Ohh, poor eski. Get called out and get your feewings hurt. Don't get too invested.

By all means do your best to try and hurt my feelings. I think it would be amusing. So far you're trying to misspell words to sound like a little kid, which is a pretty funny thing for a presumably middle aged man with children to be doing.

 

[LegendKiller]

By all means do your best to try and hurt my feelings. I think it would be amusing. So far you're trying to misspell words to sound like a little kid, which is a pretty funny thing for a presumably middle aged man with children to be doing.

No, trying to treat you like a little kid. I'm used to dealing with their immature deflections.

You say you aren't invested and don't care, but you are and you do. You are all in with her to the point of irrationality and willingness to declare guilt before proof, ignore proof, when it comes to anything trump. However, the opposite is true with hillbilly

 

[Greenman]

It took 7 posts to spin away from the NYT fabricating a story, to deciding it was true in a grander sense.

 

[fskimospy]

It took 7 posts to spin away from the NYT fabricating a story, to deciding it was true in a grander sense.

Who did that? It's one quoted person in a piece that quotes lots of people about a topic that Trump has been notorious over for decades. Are you saying that one bad quote means all the rest of the evidence is meaningless? If not, what are you saying?

 

[Moonbeam]

Ohh, poor eski. Get called out and get your feewings hurt. Don't get too invested.

Wouldn't it be cool if you could make that true just by saying it, that you could sluff off the emotional damage that had been done to you by controlling authoritarians just by coloring everybody else in a healthier place to be weak sauce and fairies? But it doesn't work that way. The only relevant person suffering from a tortured soul here for you is yourself, and the only reason I'm telling you is not that I want you to suffer but to get better. I know who you really are because I am you. Humpty Dumpty is not his shell.

 

[fskimospy]

No, trying to treat you like a little kid. I'm used to dealing with their immature deflections.

You're a grown man trying to impersonate the diction of a small child because you think it will make someone on the internet mad and you're even failing at that, haha. Like I said, keep it up!

You say you aren't invested and don't care, but you are and you do. You are all in with her to the point of irrationality and willingness to declare guilt before proof, ignore proof, when it comes to anything trump. However, the opposite is true with hillbilly

I never said I don't care, I said I'm not emotionally invested like you are where my emotions overcome common sense. If all or even most of the quotes in this piece turn out to be false I'm perfectly okay with saying that Trump has been the victim of a hit piece. If they turn out to be true, I somehow doubt you will be willing to admit that Trump is a misogynistic piece of shit. That's the difference between you and me.

 

[soundforbjt]

It took 7 posts to spin away from the NYT fabricating a story, to deciding it was true in a grander sense.

So all the other women were lying as well? Link?

 

[HomerJS]

If true irresponsible of the NYT. Trump supporters can now point to this story to refute future stories. Righties get their media foil.

Ironic she appears on Fox and Friends when that show makes shit up all the time and spins stories to the Republicans favor.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder what Hillary Clinton's real opinion of men is so close, as she is to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Wiener.

 

[Bowfinger]

Who did that? It's one quoted person in a piece that quotes lots of people about a topic that Trump has been notorious over for decades. Are you saying that one bad quote means all the rest of the evidence is meaningless? If not, what are you saying?

It's just like the Facebook story. They will uncritically accept the claims of the one they agree with over the rebuttals of the many who do not.

The funny thing is I thought the NYT story was relatively benign. It showed Trump acting like a lot of men from his generation, especially men with power and money. It also showed he treated many women pretty well, giving them some great opportunities. But that's one defining trait of fan boys: they cannot abide any criticism, no matter how mild, and no matter how well documented. They must destroy anyone or anything that challenges their idol.

If the NYT misquoted the woman, I have no doubt they'll print a correction. There's also a good chance they'll discipline the reporter, if the story is inaccurate. That's one of the things that differentiates legitimate media from the blogs and tabloids the righties love. Printing misinformation and misleading innuendo is the business model of their blogs and tabloids.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's just like the Facebook story. They will uncritically accept the claims of the one they agree with over the rebuttals of the many who do not. The funny thing is I thought the NYT story was relatively benign. It showed Trump acting like a lot of men from his generation, especially men with power and money.

It also showed he treated many women pretty well, giving them some great opportunities. But that's one defining trait of fan boys: they cannot abide any criticism, no matter how mild, and no matter how well documented. They must destroy anyone or anything that challenges their idol.

If the NYT misquoted the woman, I have no doubt they'll print a correction. There's also a good chance they'll discipline the reporter, if the story is inaccurate. That's one of the things that differentiates legitimate media from the blogs and tabloids the righties love. Printing misinformation and misleading innuendo is the business model of their blogs and tabloids.

Isn't the NYT a CIA owned paper?

 

[Bowfinger]

Isn't the NYT a CIA owned paper?

No, that's the Washington Post. The New York Times is owned by the NSA.

 

[Hugo Drax]

If true irresponsible of the NYT. Trump supporters can now point to this story to refute future stories. Righties get their media foil.

Ironic she appears on Fox and Friends when that show makes shit up all the time and spins stories to the Republicans favor.

That is the problem when you start reporting and aiming for a specific angle.

Now the whole article is put into question and it does give Trump ammunition to say. "I told you so"

All they need to do is report the facts, but when you start trying to make up facts how trustworthy is the entire organization?

 

[Moonbeam]

No, that's the Washington Post. The New York Times is owned by the NSA.

My mistake.

 

[Blackjack200]

The funny thing is I thought the NYT story was relatively benign. It showed Trump acting like a lot of men from his generation, especially men with power and money.

Exactly. I read the whole story when it was published, and I thought it was critical, but fair. For example, they mentioned several times that Trump promoted women to executive positions in his businesses, and that that was virtually unheard of in his industry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The funny thing is I thought the NYT story was relatively benign. It showed Trump acting like a lot of men from his generation, especially men with power and money.

I thought it was benign as well even with all the lies and spin. Meanwhile, the recent Clinton Foundation scandal gets very little media attention. Go figure.

 

[sm625]

Even if Trump did do some questionable things, I think these women have an unspoken rule amongst themselves not to mess with the Donald. So even if some things happened, we are never going to hear about them. Although as we've seen with Cosby, if there is truth it tends to come out in the long run. So whatever Trump has done, it probably was nowhere near as bad as it is with some moneyed men. I mean Bill Clinton flies around with Epstein two dozen times and no one even talks about it... For all we know he was banging 12 year old girls while onboard the frickin plane, and these people dont care.

 

[PokerGuy]

I mean Bill Clinton flies around with Epstein two dozen times and no one even talks about it...

Very simple, does he have an (R) next to his name? No? Then obviously the story must not be important.....

 

[michal1980]

the unbiased lmsm, somehow also released this story after Trump basically secures the nomination.

Why wait so long?

 

[feralkid]

Orange, apple, elephant.


"Holy shit, he just said she is dumbo and has huge ears and is ugly"

Which one of these doesn't look like the others.

You must have really sucked at that game as a kid.

He said "blood coming out of her whatever".

What do you think he meant by her "whatever"?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He said "blood coming out of her whatever".

What do you think he meant by her "whatever"?

Maybe something, maybe nothing. Believe what you want to believe, disregard the rest.

 

[shira]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ex-trump-girlfriend-new-york-times-223205

If you read the details of the Fox interview with Rowanne Brewer Lane, Lane repeats essentially everything stated in the NYT story. The reason she's upset is that SHE enjoyed the experience of meeting Trump and dating him for a few months, whereas the NYT reporter interpreted her experience at the party as Trump exploiting/debasing a young woman he had just met.

But the Times story is far from one-sided. It makes clear that Trump treated women both very badly and very well. To quote from the story:

What emerges from the interviews is a complex, at times contradictory portrait of a wealthy, well-known and provocative man and the women around him, one that defies simple categorization. Some women found him gracious and encouraging. He promoted several to the loftiest heights of his company, a daring move for a major real estate developer at the time.

He simultaneously nurtured women’s careers and mocked their physical appearance. “You like your candy,” he told an overweight female executive who oversaw the construction of his headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. He could be lewd one moment and gentlemanly the next.

So if this Time story is - to quote the OP - "outed as a lie," then I guess that means that some women did NOT find Trump gracious and encouraging. I guess that means that he never promoted some women to "the loftiest heights of his company." I guess that means Trump never "nurtured women's careers."

You see, it works both ways: If you claim the story is a fabrication you don't get to just dismiss the negative stuff.

 

[LegendKiller]

If you read the details of the Fox interview with Rowanne Brewer Lane, Lane repeats essentially everything stated in the NYT story. The reason she's upset is that SHE enjoyed the experience of meeting Trump and dating him for a few months, whereas the NYT reporter interpreted her experience at the party as Trump exploiting/debasing a young woman he had just met.

But the Times story is far from one-sided. It makes clear that Trump treated women both very badly and very well. To quote from the story:



So if this Time story is - to quote the OP - "outed as a lie," then I guess that means that some women did NOT find Trump gracious and encouraging. I guess that means that he never promoted some women to "the loftiest heights of his company." I guess that means Trump never "nurtured women's careers."

You see, it works both ways: If you claim the story is a fabrication you don't get to just dismiss the negative stuff.

My wife (who hates trump) says the article was a mess. Even when I pointed out their dual sided reporting she still thought it was a ridiculously messy hit piece.

 

[shady28]

Shira -

To state a few obvious things -

1 - If the NYT lied about what this person said (which I provided references for), it stands to reason they probably lied about others.

2 - If the NYT misrepresented what this person said (which she overtly stated they did), then it stands to reason they misrepresented others.

3 - If they did the above to anyone mentioned in the article, it means they have a political agenda that is affecting their ability to accurately report on the topic.

4 - The interview was the result of the bias way the NYT presented her experience with Trump, and in some cases outright fabrication (the item about having her remove her clothes).

I believe these things are all obvious.

To give you an example of how easy it is, some select quotations from your post :

...She enjoyed the experience of meeting Trump and dating him for a few months..

he [Trump]...promoted some women to "the loftiest heights of his company."

You see how easy it is. You're now saying women love trump and he's an advocate of promoting women within corporations.

I think if the journalists integrity is called into question, which it has been, then everything they say is suspect.

As far as what I do and don't get to do - well I do dismiss the entire article and frankly the entire rag (NYT). But facts do speak for themselves, and the fact is Trump did promote women to very high positions within his organization.

And really, has anyone interviewed the Clinton's ex liason partners? Has anyone interviewed Hillary's ex boyfriends (does she have any?)?

What would someone find if they interviewed your ex's?

The whole NYT approach was tabloid in nature to begin with, don't be surprised when such trash journalism explodes.