What is wrong with a level playing field? Billionaire funded lawsuits vs. huge media companies with insurance.
1
Isn't that so sad? The liberal 'yellow press' is running into opposition. That is SO unfair!
1
The billionaires are bit by bit destroying democracy and it's frightening. Who will speak for the democracy, the people? Who will fight against the atrocities done by these extremely rich and powerful if the News Media is afraid?
3
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 12h12 hours ago
Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!
0 replies 22,619 retweets 68,343 likes
Reply Retweet 23K
Trump's most recent propaganda today includes a claim, again, of media bias. Yes, big problem, indeed. Trump plans to take down the media, by dismantling libel laws, and replace it with Bannon's fascist rhetoric that those who sip up every drop Trump gives them will herald as making America great again.
Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!
0 replies 22,619 retweets 68,343 likes
Reply Retweet 23K
Trump's most recent propaganda today includes a claim, again, of media bias. Yes, big problem, indeed. Trump plans to take down the media, by dismantling libel laws, and replace it with Bannon's fascist rhetoric that those who sip up every drop Trump gives them will herald as making America great again.
"Buy the rumor, sell the news."
Herein lies the underpinnings of what has become the much-maligned/manipulated daily news cycle. Who's gaming who?
Herein lies the underpinnings of what has become the much-maligned/manipulated daily news cycle. Who's gaming who?
Call it a free country. Call it a democracy. Call it any positive adjective or noun that people like to hear. In school we learned there are two necessary requirements for a government "of, by, and for the people" to be true in reality rather than make-believe and spin. This is often forgotten or overlooked in discussions.
1. Enough investigative reporters are able to make a comfortable living working on situations and stories that require extended time and effort and digging.
2. Whistleblowers are encouraged and actually rewarded, rather than punished or threatened. This is doubly necessary for those who take professional oaths. Those who threaten or punish whistleblowers should be seriously punished or fired. As should those who attempt to cover up wrongdoing. When whistleblowers today succeed rather than stepped on and made the enemy, it is so rare as to be front page news.
Currently, number one is barely true, if at all, and has been at serious attack by the current administration.
Currently, number two is fantasy only.
Do schools no longer teach this?
1. Enough investigative reporters are able to make a comfortable living working on situations and stories that require extended time and effort and digging.
2. Whistleblowers are encouraged and actually rewarded, rather than punished or threatened. This is doubly necessary for those who take professional oaths. Those who threaten or punish whistleblowers should be seriously punished or fired. As should those who attempt to cover up wrongdoing. When whistleblowers today succeed rather than stepped on and made the enemy, it is so rare as to be front page news.
Currently, number one is barely true, if at all, and has been at serious attack by the current administration.
Currently, number two is fantasy only.
Do schools no longer teach this?
1
Arthur Koestler noticed a similar - although more direct - process of eliminating enemy media in the run-up to the Nazi takeover, in his memoirs about the early years, Arrow in the Blue.
Stuck as it is between the rock of Wall Street and the frank exchanges coming in re-making of the Democratic Party as, again, the "party of the working people," the Times will need to choose its ground for battle very soon now.
North of the 49th, Conrad Black attempted a journalistic coup to fashion a newspaper empire into a new voice of finance capital, and ended up further beggaring an industry - the majority of Canada's dailies are owned and operated by a U.S. hedge fund. Fortunately, U.S. law was not yet altered in a manner to favor oligarchs, in the Putin/Trump style. And comments like this should still be safe enough to print if its from daily observation.
Stuck as it is between the rock of Wall Street and the frank exchanges coming in re-making of the Democratic Party as, again, the "party of the working people," the Times will need to choose its ground for battle very soon now.
North of the 49th, Conrad Black attempted a journalistic coup to fashion a newspaper empire into a new voice of finance capital, and ended up further beggaring an industry - the majority of Canada's dailies are owned and operated by a U.S. hedge fund. Fortunately, U.S. law was not yet altered in a manner to favor oligarchs, in the Putin/Trump style. And comments like this should still be safe enough to print if its from daily observation.
All a court has to do is be generous in discovery, making the attacker the subject of relentless and public discovery for all aspect of your life. If Trumps sues someone for claiming he did not have sex with that women, his entire sexual history becomes a subject of discovery. Just ask Bill.
Anyone who thinks that bringing a lawsuit is fun and games watches too much TV.
Anyone who thinks that bringing a lawsuit is fun and games watches too much TV.
The biggest threat and the main reason for journalism's decline is the corporate ownership of approximately 90% of media in this country. TV news stations went from programming for serious journalism to pandering for a ratings bump. Trump is merely another outgrowth of that.
2
What is the point of this story? Fact is, in recent years the press has gone excessively overboard with personal attacks. Not only have they libeled and defamed, they`ve regularly taunted their subjects to sue. It is the sort of arrogance Sullivan did not foresee. No way SCOTUS imagined their ruling would be seen as a free pass/license to libel, which is how the press has interpreted Sullivan.
The pushback currently in progress is long overdue, and as noted here, supported by the public at large. It is helped and accompanied by the failure of the print business model, rise of the fifth estate i.e. digital media, and increasing opposition by the public at large to offensive speech. The only missing piece is lowering the bar for libel/defame that Sullivan artificially raised although for entirely different though honorable reasons.
That decision needs a revisit and re-rule. If Trump, the media`s decades-long favorite target/victim will work to change the laws, who can blame him? Plus he has huuge public support.
Fact is, offensive speech is neither a constitutional right, nor is it free. Something the NYT has thus far refused to acknowledge, mainly on the basis of Sullivan. Cut it loose.
The pushback currently in progress is long overdue, and as noted here, supported by the public at large. It is helped and accompanied by the failure of the print business model, rise of the fifth estate i.e. digital media, and increasing opposition by the public at large to offensive speech. The only missing piece is lowering the bar for libel/defame that Sullivan artificially raised although for entirely different though honorable reasons.
That decision needs a revisit and re-rule. If Trump, the media`s decades-long favorite target/victim will work to change the laws, who can blame him? Plus he has huuge public support.
Fact is, offensive speech is neither a constitutional right, nor is it free. Something the NYT has thus far refused to acknowledge, mainly on the basis of Sullivan. Cut it loose.
1
Yes, never trust the press, because they'll only get bogged-down in facts.
But here's what I'll do (pick your own. Trust me!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
But here's what I'll do (pick your own. Trust me!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
If they go that route we can get together groups to finance lawsuits against fake news websites. It would be a no brainer to prove actual malice and reckless disregard of the truth. How is it that no one is suing fake news sites already?
1
Why can't Hillary accuse Trump and Breitbert of libel for repeatedly stating that she is a criminal? For that matter, Obama should sue Trump for his 8-year long birther claim.
Keep talking freedom and democracy, "despite the groundwork for an unprecedented legal assault on the media". The article puts the lie to these issues, controlled by the "corrupt criminal justice system". Fill the jails and make the system rich. People are tired of lawyers. HRC and Obama are the problem and not the solutions
If libel laws apply to any statements in writing (as opposed to slander), I assume Mr. Trump's tweets would be subject to the same standards as for traditional print media. One can't help but suspect there may be potentially libelous statements in those infamous 3:00 AM Twitter postings. Perhaps some tech billionaire will fund legal fees for those injured by Mr. Trump's tweets.
Let's keep it simple.
How many people actually believe that we have a free press? A body of book publishers, news media, etc., not controlled or restricted by government censorship in political or ideological matters. But does it want to be free?
How many people believe we actually have a Democracy? Government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
How many people believe that "all men (sexist to begin with) are created equal"? That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
How many people believe that there is a separation between church and state or believe that religion isn't a "power" (a political control or influence) over those around it.
How many people actually believe that we have a free press? A body of book publishers, news media, etc., not controlled or restricted by government censorship in political or ideological matters. But does it want to be free?
How many people believe we actually have a Democracy? Government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
How many people believe that "all men (sexist to begin with) are created equal"? That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
How many people believe that there is a separation between church and state or believe that religion isn't a "power" (a political control or influence) over those around it.
4
"O’Brien’s publisher, Warner Books, was also named in the suit and hired top lawyers who put Trump through an unsparing two-day deposition." These details would be instructive to read about. The press, especially the papers that are being sued, would serve their readers and the wider public well if these depositions and other court evidence were published at the time. It would take some of the wind out of these rich bloviators and expose them to necessary ridicule. Trump just hates forensic scrutiny, especially by accountants and lawyers..
5
Just as you never have to remember lies if you always go with the truth as you know it, the media never has to judge stories' effect on their friends if they stay true to their independence.
While independence has been long-ago flushed at the partisan Times, a few new media outlets like to upset the comfortable.
While independence has been long-ago flushed at the partisan Times, a few new media outlets like to upset the comfortable.
2
Although freedom of speech and expression aren't merely utopian ideals in much of America, most of humanity knows neither economic nor intellectual freedom. Even within America, Noam Chomsky's views on "thought control in a democratic society" are rarely debated and mostly sidelined as those of a misguided leftist intellectual. Having personally experienced " 7 SLAPP lawsuits" from so called Indian billionaires that some like to portray as the beacon of light in "demo(n)cratic" India, I can confirm first hand that neither freedom nor associated free expression exists. Therefore, your story foreshadows a major conundrum for the less fortunate, that look up to America as the shining beacon for intellectual pursuits worldwide. Institutional strength, and an attempt at portraying moral vigour differentiated modern America from the rest of the world. Unbridled gun violence, resurgent police brutality targeting certain communities, and now the rise of SLAPP to constrain writers are highly unwelcome developments. I sincerely hope given the breadth and depth of economic fortunes in America, that someone will stand up to defend the seekers of truth as well.
5
You're just asking this now? -- when corporate greed has been over-taking, and dictating to the Press (and Media) what is should, and should not be doing, for YEARS???
So, what suddenly made it so obvious that there's something wrong with the picture? -- Is it president-elect Trump, who now threatens to take over the airwaves and make good on his promise of eternal litigation, should the NYT (or anyone else) dare to say something "mean" about him?
Is that what it takes to recognize that the !st Amendment is about to come under direct assault by the highest elected official in the land?? -- And this isn't even taking into consideration a compliant Republican-held House, Senate, and soon-to-be Supreme Court.
So, YES. The media is in a good position to come under legal assault.
And only now you ask, "Can they succeed?"
So, what suddenly made it so obvious that there's something wrong with the picture? -- Is it president-elect Trump, who now threatens to take over the airwaves and make good on his promise of eternal litigation, should the NYT (or anyone else) dare to say something "mean" about him?
Is that what it takes to recognize that the !st Amendment is about to come under direct assault by the highest elected official in the land?? -- And this isn't even taking into consideration a compliant Republican-held House, Senate, and soon-to-be Supreme Court.
So, YES. The media is in a good position to come under legal assault.
And only now you ask, "Can they succeed?"
6
Terrifying that most people are unaware of the role of a free press in a democracy. Without the press, there would be no civil rights act, no Watergate and a whole lot more.
14
One way to deal with the threat of lawsuits by, for example, a Breitbart would be to simply report the facts about what is on the web site, letting readers draw their own conclusions as to its biases.
Isn't there also a difference between flat-out name-calling and stating "It is my opinion that..."? In other words, opinions are protected by the First Amendment, aren't they?
Ahead, I see the exercise of more careful journalism, but an honest journalism that cannot allow itself to be diminished.
Isn't there also a difference between flat-out name-calling and stating "It is my opinion that..."? In other words, opinions are protected by the First Amendment, aren't they?
Ahead, I see the exercise of more careful journalism, but an honest journalism that cannot allow itself to be diminished.
4
The days of honest journalism was during the mid-20th century but it is a distant memory. The Washington Post surrendered what remained of its credibility this weekend with a fake expose'.
The papers or sites that don't worry about losing readers would logically post links to stories they discuss, would they not?
The papers or sites that don't worry about losing readers would logically post links to stories they discuss, would they not?
2
Expecting journalists to further pull in their heads and simply report facts without analysis and conclusions will only make worse the false equivalence we saw in this election that convinced millions that Trump was no worse than Hillary, when he flat out lied on every occasion, and outrageously inflamed the bigoted passions of his followers.
Your prescription would make our vital watchdogs in the press into toothless lapdog of the powerful.
Your prescription would make our vital watchdogs in the press into toothless lapdog of the powerful.
1
It's very obvious that the president elect has attempted to control his media coverage for years. He is a press and attention junkie. This is a man that regularly called newspapers to plant stories to bolster his playboy image. This is a man that visited the Howard Stern Show more than once to boast about his sexual prowess and exploits. There is no doubting this, it's all on tape. The president elect's warts are out there for all to see. To think he will stop trying to control the press now is naive.
Wealthy individuals have always used the courts to control and intimidate. They have lawyers on their payrolls so for the most part it costs them nothing to be so litigious. Just part of doing business. It is up to the courts to defend the legal right to a free press. The fact that the president elect can stack the courts is scary.
Reputable newspapers and media need to be more diligent than ever.
Someone needs to use their wealth for good and go after these fake news sites, and the people that are making a profit off of these malicious and harmful rumors.
Wealthy individuals have always used the courts to control and intimidate. They have lawyers on their payrolls so for the most part it costs them nothing to be so litigious. Just part of doing business. It is up to the courts to defend the legal right to a free press. The fact that the president elect can stack the courts is scary.
Reputable newspapers and media need to be more diligent than ever.
Someone needs to use their wealth for good and go after these fake news sites, and the people that are making a profit off of these malicious and harmful rumors.
3
Can they succeed ?
Of course. Who is going to stop them ?
Of course. Who is going to stop them ?
2
Glad to hear that the dean of Yale law school thinks that there are dollar limits on law suits against doctors. As a doctor who practices in New York, the dollar limit in law suits against physicians is news to me. So glad he teaches law!
1
Here's a bigger issue: who is "the press?" We need some working legal definition to distinguish how the NY Times, even at its slanted worst, is in a different category from a lie-spewing guy in his underwear sitting at his computer in a basement in Macedonia. And if you think the NYT is the slanted worst, try picking up the Wall Street Journal editorial and op-ed pages any day of the week.
5
People, in the words of the police of Baltimore when they had that guy wounded in the back of the vehicle who died from the trip, we are "in for a bumpy ride" that we too might not survive. It is as clear as that. Jim Squires points it out well in his comments. I go a bit more into details. We have lost all semblance of a balance of powers if DJT gets into the WH. As his followers would not accept it being reported that he had killed someone on 5th Ave with camera pictures, the courts and Congress would just sign his edicts and that would be it. Want to question that, look how the judge in TX has already killed overtime pay for lots of workers across the US just before Obama leaves office. You will start to see a lot more TX style Trump readiness actions, like the hate stuff, before DJT makes his entry into the WH.
I will support Jill Stein and Hillary in the recount because I want to see/know the truth.
I will support Jill Stein and Hillary in the recount because I want to see/know the truth.
2
The only press deeply worried is the liberal press. You misjudged an entire people and called us deplorables. Do you think we care if the liberal media disappeared? CNN thinks we are complete idiots. The NYT cherry picks the articles you can comment on. Folks might just see through this.
3
NYT - "A small group of superrich Americans — the president-elect among them — has laid the groundwork for an unprecedented legal assault on the media. Can they succeed?"
From the perspective of a person who reads three newspapers a day, the NYT included, I don't think it's so much an assault on the "media" per se. It is an assault on the "media elites" those who "know all" and are perfectly willing to manipulate the news and how it is presented to be in their best advantage. Whether that advantage is ideological, political, or monetary.
The one thing that this last election should have shown these "elites" is that you can't fool all of the people all of the time and that they certainly shouldn't talk down to those who don't think exactly the same way they think. They are NOT always right.
From the perspective of a person who reads three newspapers a day, the NYT included, I don't think it's so much an assault on the "media" per se. It is an assault on the "media elites" those who "know all" and are perfectly willing to manipulate the news and how it is presented to be in their best advantage. Whether that advantage is ideological, political, or monetary.
The one thing that this last election should have shown these "elites" is that you can't fool all of the people all of the time and that they certainly shouldn't talk down to those who don't think exactly the same way they think. They are NOT always right.
2
The media needs to be restrained. Libel laws must be passed that are similar to England. The media now can libel a public figure with impunity as long as it is not done with a knowing disregard for the truth. This is a ridiculous windfall for the sloppy hateful press and they used this cover to unload falsehood upon falsehood against Mr. trump. This has to stop. They should be liable in negligence like any other outfit. The media has long ago abandoned due diligence. This paper publishes a daily dose of false stories and they could not care less because they know they can't be sued. This has to stop.
3
We need a stronger and free press to counter this type of nonsense. Trump lies with every breath - the press reports and exposes those lies, and you blame the press.
Unfortunately you represent most Trump supporters' baseless worldview. Dark days ahead for this country, surely.
Unfortunately you represent most Trump supporters' baseless worldview. Dark days ahead for this country, surely.
1
Surely Mr T was a more fertile source of untruths than the NYT?
1
yeah, well trump will continue to shame and blame media, but social media will continue to expose what trump tries to hide: his illegal behavior, his attitude he is above the law, his lying about how much he has to pretend he is someone he is not, his unchristian behavior, his lack of middle class values, his failed marriages, his hypocrisy, his self love, his meaness and revenge, his demand for loyalty, his impulsive behavior, hisf filthy mouth and lack of manners and etiquette, his management by fear style, and the worst thing of all: his demanding that we respect him like spouse who abuses you and expects you to still love and trust him. History is so on the side of Hillary who "jaywalked," while Trump commits hit 'n' runs. Sorry, but Hillary is an angel compared to Trump. THAT story that the media kept repeating without evidence along with Russia's help is what the media has to live with now.
3
Many Trump voters probably don't spend much time reading, and certainly not the New York Times! Much easier to listen to the angry talk radio stations, or listen to Fox "News". I'm fearful for our country!
7
Trump will finally be exposed, if he acts on the threats he's made during the campaign. Should he order or condone impeachable offenses on a scale that disgusts his own party, we could see him impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Then we would get Pence, who believes humankind was created 6000 years ago and only accepts science that conforms to his party's doctrine. Trump is a wide spectrum disaster. May his majorities in Congress vanish in November 2018.
3
But the press has grown partisan and given up its contentious and skeptical role a long time ago.Its coverage has also become more trivial too. Of course the public's distrust of the press has grown accordingly. I'm surprised it is still so high.The disaffection not be solved by fighting a legal change in libel suit rules. This is a very minor threat. Face the real problems first.
7
Soros? Forget about them? Clinton Foundation? Big money has taken over both major political parties. It's all so crooked, I don't know how we can recover.
4
In NYT and Sullivan, the law was on Sullivan's side, but the court didn't want him to win because they despised him as a racist. So they invented a new rule, "actual malice", which apparently means that you can make false, damaging statements and get away with it as long as you are not "reckless". Not surprisingly, journalists think this extra protection is a great improvement in libel law; to me it sounds like stacking the deck against the individual bringing the suit. As for protecting the press against harassment, Britain's cap on damages makes a lot more sense.
7
I just made a continuing contribution to ProPublica, "an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest."
We need active investigative journalists more than ever now, but newsrooms across the US have been cutting back staff. The reporters who are left have to focus their energies on breaking news. They don't get the time or the resources to pursue stories that take months or even years to develop.
Donating to ProPublica is a great way to preserve the kind of reporting that holds the rich and powerful to account by uncovering the activities they don't want you to know about. A billionaire with a history of shady business practices who loathes the news media is about to assume the most powerful position in the world. We must make sure investigative journalists have everything they need to keep a close watch on him.
https://www.propublica.org/
We need active investigative journalists more than ever now, but newsrooms across the US have been cutting back staff. The reporters who are left have to focus their energies on breaking news. They don't get the time or the resources to pursue stories that take months or even years to develop.
Donating to ProPublica is a great way to preserve the kind of reporting that holds the rich and powerful to account by uncovering the activities they don't want you to know about. A billionaire with a history of shady business practices who loathes the news media is about to assume the most powerful position in the world. We must make sure investigative journalists have everything they need to keep a close watch on him.
https://www.propublica.org/
12
Yes, perhaps we could start with the NY Times. Perhaps they should spend less time colluding with the Clinton campaign and more time looking into serious allegations of the Clintons apparent and in some cases proven conflicts of interest.
Instead they seem to be wrapped around the axle bashing Trump for NY Times "perceived" and maybe possible conflicts.
Instead they seem to be wrapped around the axle bashing Trump for NY Times "perceived" and maybe possible conflicts.
1
If we lose freedom of the press to the technicalities of libel laws and any other ways the super rich can hassle those who do our investigative journalism, then it doesn't matter who you give your money to. The press will be gone.
"Perceived" conflicts of interest? How about *actual* conflicts in which Trump is already exploiting his status as president-elect? His daughter improperly in meetings with the leaders of Japan and Argentina. Permits for a Trump project in Argentina magically cleared the next day. Trump asking Nigel Farage to oppose wind farms, one of which would "mar" the view from his Scotland golf course?
Trump is already using the United States as an extension of his personal business. He even boasted about his immunity from conflict of interest laws. His baseless claims of corruption against Hillary will pale against his actual corruption. Enjoy the ride.
Trump is already using the United States as an extension of his personal business. He even boasted about his immunity from conflict of interest laws. His baseless claims of corruption against Hillary will pale against his actual corruption. Enjoy the ride.
2
Trump's playbook on using lawsuits to silence enemies comes straight from Roy Cohn who was a despicable human.
11
Trunp's releasing of videos rather than taking questions from the press, with the exception of NYTimes, it is frightening. This way he doesn't have to answer questions. This way he can be totally scripted. Reading the transcript of his "talk" with the NYTimes was illuminating. When he talks his real personality shows through --- it's all about him and how great he is. When he is scripted, other people put the words into his mouths and he sounds somewhat sane. Please keep the light on this presidency.
17
In picking a fight with the press, the mega-rich are only doing what the mega-rich have always done; they're using their money as a weapon.
As for the press, quite frankly I'd be more concerned if the Fourth Estate were still the Fourth Estate that it used to be, but it isn't. The New York Times may be the best of a substantially bad bunch, but it's only a shadow of its former self.
I have a feeling that the mega-wealthy are going to have their hands full in the future with social media tools that may not even have been invented yet. Forgive me if I don't sympathize with them.
As for the press, quite frankly I'd be more concerned if the Fourth Estate were still the Fourth Estate that it used to be, but it isn't. The New York Times may be the best of a substantially bad bunch, but it's only a shadow of its former self.
I have a feeling that the mega-wealthy are going to have their hands full in the future with social media tools that may not even have been invented yet. Forgive me if I don't sympathize with them.
Justice that depends on being able to afford it is not justice. At one time we knew that lesson. It is one more tragic instance where we have let fairness and equality dissipate at a great cost to democracy. This process has been slow to be realized, being accomplished through private money obtaining political influence and public money being withdrawn from enforcement of justice and fairness.
The worst part? Millions of Americans have been co-opted into buying into a brand of libertarianism that stupidly puts them at risk as if a theoretically level playing field will guarantee their financial and legal security.
In A Man For All Seasons the Thomas More character argues for giving the Devil the benefit of law. Why? Because if we dismantle law what is left to protect us when the Devil turns on us? I am afraid the devil of our times, the super-rich, who increasingly own all avenues of power, will have little to restrain their lust for more at the expense of what truly makes America great. This is no slogan on a hat, it is the very basis of democracy and the dream our founders had of an experiment in enobling all of us
The worst part? Millions of Americans have been co-opted into buying into a brand of libertarianism that stupidly puts them at risk as if a theoretically level playing field will guarantee their financial and legal security.
In A Man For All Seasons the Thomas More character argues for giving the Devil the benefit of law. Why? Because if we dismantle law what is left to protect us when the Devil turns on us? I am afraid the devil of our times, the super-rich, who increasingly own all avenues of power, will have little to restrain their lust for more at the expense of what truly makes America great. This is no slogan on a hat, it is the very basis of democracy and the dream our founders had of an experiment in enobling all of us
3
In suing The Times before a sympathetic local jury of white men in Montgomery in the tumultuous early 60s, Sullivan was attempting to resurrect the discredited doctrine of seditious libel -- libel of the government itself.
A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the attempt, and created the high bar of "actual malice." But it now appears that this objective test has encountered that stubborn anti-objectivist, the Reasonable Man. Local juries determine what is "actual malice."
The Times v. Sullivan decision included concurrences by Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Arthur Goldberg, who went so far as to maintain that ANY libel action at all should be prohibited by the First Amendment.
Sadly, that concurrence is not likely to become law.
A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the attempt, and created the high bar of "actual malice." But it now appears that this objective test has encountered that stubborn anti-objectivist, the Reasonable Man. Local juries determine what is "actual malice."
The Times v. Sullivan decision included concurrences by Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Arthur Goldberg, who went so far as to maintain that ANY libel action at all should be prohibited by the First Amendment.
Sadly, that concurrence is not likely to become law.
1
I'm still trying to calculate and figure the odds. Impeachment in 2018 or 2019. Then the tricky part. Will he have stacked the courts in his favor? Or will his millions actually buy him out of it. It's all so so juicy, if it was such a shame. People DO love dirty laundry, and Donald's will give the masses that which they seek. Politainment. For the new millennium.
2
Billionaires, like Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos, already own the press (The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos a couple years ago).
Time Warner, no small company,owns CNN.
Thoughts?
Time Warner, no small company,owns CNN.
Thoughts?
6
Someone has to own a news organization. The real test is whether the reporters are permitted to do their job without pressure from above.
Advertisers hate cage-rattling and investigative reporting. Owners hate to lose advertisers. But Bezo's Post is largely staffed by editors and reporters who rattle an awful lot of cages on The Hill and sometimes bite the hand that feeds them. Conde Nast owns the New Yorker, which has a long history of promoting investigative journalism. There are other owners who refrain from pressuring their newsrooms to benefit themselves--but they are a vanishing breed.
Advertisers hate cage-rattling and investigative reporting. Owners hate to lose advertisers. But Bezo's Post is largely staffed by editors and reporters who rattle an awful lot of cages on The Hill and sometimes bite the hand that feeds them. Conde Nast owns the New Yorker, which has a long history of promoting investigative journalism. There are other owners who refrain from pressuring their newsrooms to benefit themselves--but they are a vanishing breed.
5
A comment I wrote when the story had just been put up online and only 3 other comments had been posted? Never appeared. A comment I wrote a few hours later, complimenting someone else's post had no trouble being put on the board within a few minutes. It's really difficult to participate in a discussion, when the discussion you are entering passes you buy and your post doesn't find its way online until 24 or 48 hours later. If it is even posted at all. I thought..."Why bother to comment?" I can't believe that's the effect you intended, but it is discouraging to say the least.
Can't you do a little better, put my name on some list that doesn't get delayed, or some other solution?
It keeps happening, not to all of course, but it's enough to make a person pause...and write. Thx.
Can't you do a little better, put my name on some list that doesn't get delayed, or some other solution?
It keeps happening, not to all of course, but it's enough to make a person pause...and write. Thx.
6
"The new president will be a man who constantly accuses the media of getting things wrong but routinely misrepresents and twists facts himself." I'm no Trump supporter, but you're making a rod for your own back. You're actively creating the behaviour you claim to be most averse to. He might be a fact-twisting President (he wouldn't be the first), he might not. Why put him in a box immediately?
7
Donald Trump doesn't twist facts. He ignores them. He may not even be able to recognize one when he sees it. This is a man whose accountants and lawyers never meet with him one on one, because the lies gush out faster than one person can process.
We have never seen a national politician like Trump, who lies effortlessly and often. When challenged, he lies about lying. He lies even when there's no discernible reason for lying. Listening to him is an adventure in cognitive dissonance.
In fact, that may be the point: Trump is creating a whole new world where nothing is the same from hour to hour and you never know which direction he's going to veer toward next. If this is a deliberate strategy, it's horrifying, but the evidence suggests that he simply cannot stop--that our next president is a pathological liar. We're going to need all the investigative journalists we can find to keep track and correct the record.
We have never seen a national politician like Trump, who lies effortlessly and often. When challenged, he lies about lying. He lies even when there's no discernible reason for lying. Listening to him is an adventure in cognitive dissonance.
In fact, that may be the point: Trump is creating a whole new world where nothing is the same from hour to hour and you never know which direction he's going to veer toward next. If this is a deliberate strategy, it's horrifying, but the evidence suggests that he simply cannot stop--that our next president is a pathological liar. We're going to need all the investigative journalists we can find to keep track and correct the record.
16
The irony of the Republican's White House presidential win is the president-elect is appearing to put the importantance of the Second Amendment ahead of the First Amendment. He is saying the right to shoot a gun is more sacred than speaking, writing and worshiping freely. This is truely scary.
13
One of the first signs we are on the road to Facism is the destruction of a free press. It should surprise nobody then that Trump whips up hatred of the major news outlets, while his campaign chief used to run an 'alt-right' fake news site that promotes conspiracy theories. Next thing you know, Trump will appoint Alex Jones as Minister of Propaganda!
3
This should trouble anyone that happens to fall on the wrong side of a millionaire like Trump as well as anyone of us as we the right to transparency, so that Trump cannot manipulate us
1
Since this election ended, I find the news coverage to be the same; as if our nation has completed a normal race for the Presidency and we can trust what his Rasputins and family says. Stop, full court. Stop. This President-elect is not like all the others. Citizens need your full reporting all the time, and then some. This man is a habitual liar and serial predator. He will be using his bully pulpit to feed his habits of incessant money laundering, conceit, and distracting chaos. Try harder, try your best, and do your jobs, every day and every hour. We are.
2
My biggest fear is that with Trump in the White House and him appointing very conservative Republican lawyers as judges, especially appointing a very conservative judge to the SCOTUS, will further encourage Trump to sue anybody that reports anything negative about him and embolden him to change the libel law as well. It then follows that Trump's actions in this regard will strengthen the resolve of very rich, thin skinned, conservative Republicans with poor selfesteem to initiate libel suits against reputable newspapers for the least negative or uncomplimentary remark or article. Trump seems already trying very hard to stifle the free press, reporters and especially great, well written and objective newspapers like The New York Times.
I do indeed worry that with Trump and his close advisers in the White House a plutocracy will be established. Lastly, I would not be the least surprised when this indeed happens, half of the voters in this country all of sudden start wondering "what happened to the free press and free speech or ivestigative reporting?"
I do indeed worry that with Trump and his close advisers in the White House a plutocracy will be established. Lastly, I would not be the least surprised when this indeed happens, half of the voters in this country all of sudden start wondering "what happened to the free press and free speech or ivestigative reporting?"
The Rolling Stone verdict in the University of Virginia article case indicative of a “darkening” sky for the press? The same Rolling Stone article condemned by the Columbia School of Journalism report and by just about everyone else?
Chalk up this Magazine article as the Magazine’s latest contribution to the New York Times litany of fears from Donald Trump as president. That’s the party line and the Magazine is sticking to it. Which is fine, although fairness might have called for a statement about the value of libel laws when it came to the Rolling Stone outrage.
Something new, apparently now a practice of the comments section. Posted right next to my comments, if and when they are posted, are the replies so no one can miss them, including me, who in the past paid no attention. The replies seem, not surprisingly, to come from one side of the political spectrum, I won’t say which.
Have a good time, guys.
Chalk up this Magazine article as the Magazine’s latest contribution to the New York Times litany of fears from Donald Trump as president. That’s the party line and the Magazine is sticking to it. Which is fine, although fairness might have called for a statement about the value of libel laws when it came to the Rolling Stone outrage.
Something new, apparently now a practice of the comments section. Posted right next to my comments, if and when they are posted, are the replies so no one can miss them, including me, who in the past paid no attention. The replies seem, not surprisingly, to come from one side of the political spectrum, I won’t say which.
Have a good time, guys.
2
The problem is not that the press is being held accountable, that is proper. The problem is the failure of the judiciary to curb the abuses of pretrial discovery. In fact, it could be argued that misusing the government instrumentality of the courts and judicial process in pretrial discovery is , itself, a violation of the speaker / defendant's free speech rights. Get the process correct; don't protect malicious. falsehoods.
Historically, the first action of any despot is to marginalize, and/or takeover the media.
Given that Trump is following the Putin model of wealth accumulation, it's likely that his approach might be to nationalize the media. Flynn has already attended the anniversary of the Russian media as Putin's guest, and is probably an expert on media marginalization/takeover.
Be careful media, money accumulators, and fascists are on your tail looking to buy you, and either publicly scorn you out of business, or otherwise leverage you into conformance using more militant tactics. They are particularly worried that you might somehow discover too much about 'the Don's' secret plans...........not that their nefarious plans, just that they are intended to be a surprise. The Don hates it when his targets are aware that they are targets. I mean, they might do something desperate, like fight back.
Given that Trump is following the Putin model of wealth accumulation, it's likely that his approach might be to nationalize the media. Flynn has already attended the anniversary of the Russian media as Putin's guest, and is probably an expert on media marginalization/takeover.
Be careful media, money accumulators, and fascists are on your tail looking to buy you, and either publicly scorn you out of business, or otherwise leverage you into conformance using more militant tactics. They are particularly worried that you might somehow discover too much about 'the Don's' secret plans...........not that their nefarious plans, just that they are intended to be a surprise. The Don hates it when his targets are aware that they are targets. I mean, they might do something desperate, like fight back.
1
The fourth estate must be protected. Trump accused the NYT of "very unfair" and "rough" reporting, stating zero evidence to support his claim. Reporting his statements/actions is not unfair. Reporting facts is not unfair. Editorial opinion and analysis, a basic principle of democracy, allows for criticism of government actors, including presidential candidates.
Trump perpetuates a chilling effect on the press. Not only through frivolous lawsuits and unsubstantiated claims of unfairness and bias, but by summoning and castigating media-heads and journalists, by releasing propaganda in the form of "direct statements to the public" via YouTube (comments disabled), rather than holding press conferences. We cannot stand by while Trump censors "unfavorable" press. Remember his statements on sexual assault: "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." We cannot let him do this.
I'm alarmed that Trump says that the NYT is "failing," that they "look like fools in their coverage of [Trump]," and that they provide "typically false news stories," yet Breitbart is "just a publication." With the influx of fake news, the hostility toward "liberal media", and Trump's own behavior, the future feels bleak. For that reason, this year I am gifting newspaper subscriptions to as many people as I can afford. The recipients may not want them, but I feel an urgent need to support the free press. If it can act as a form of suppression, money can also be the loudest form of support.
Trump perpetuates a chilling effect on the press. Not only through frivolous lawsuits and unsubstantiated claims of unfairness and bias, but by summoning and castigating media-heads and journalists, by releasing propaganda in the form of "direct statements to the public" via YouTube (comments disabled), rather than holding press conferences. We cannot stand by while Trump censors "unfavorable" press. Remember his statements on sexual assault: "When you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything." We cannot let him do this.
I'm alarmed that Trump says that the NYT is "failing," that they "look like fools in their coverage of [Trump]," and that they provide "typically false news stories," yet Breitbart is "just a publication." With the influx of fake news, the hostility toward "liberal media", and Trump's own behavior, the future feels bleak. For that reason, this year I am gifting newspaper subscriptions to as many people as I can afford. The recipients may not want them, but I feel an urgent need to support the free press. If it can act as a form of suppression, money can also be the loudest form of support.
2
Dear NYT - there can be little question that the President-elect is not interested in fighting for a free-press. The more important question, is whether YOU are. Journalists always saw themselves as helping to keep the system honest. Many people don't believe that, and they've gone from skeptical to hostile. With this man, a role reversal is in the offing, where he portrays himself as the savior, and makes you the demon. God help us. Don't be cowed. Remember the old mantra "better dead than red?" Fighting is a risk, but the alternative will be worse. You may go from being a first line of defense to perhaps being the last line of defense. It may be costly, but the survival of this country depends on it.
3
Sure, media contributed with its polls and forecasts. But there were other factors which cumulatively did the job, like voter suppression. Me wonders how many minorities didn't vote out of fear. Remember the "poll watchers" Trump threatened? Then add in racism, misogyny, etc. Lot of factors.
1
You know what, I should be a liberal. A first generation non white immigrant that grew up in big cities, post-college educated and traveled to Europe and Asia. I am agnostic and the first to switch to CFL then LED amongst my friends and I even follow Japanese recycling rules because NYC's is too lax.
Yet I am not a liberal, in fact, I don't like any liberal that likes to talk politics. They cannot agree to disagree because liberals are always right and they are so numbskull they don't see their own hypocrisy. Take this NYTimes article for example: billionaires (especially Trump) assault media freedom. Who did more of the assault? Did Trump make comments about Obama & Hillary's skin color, hair, facial expressions or even last name? No. Yet if you watched any late night TV in the past few months all those things have been said about Trump, including piece about his erotic relationship with Putin. Can you imagine the protest and riot that will ensue if Trump talked about Obama and Hillary the same way liberal media has been talkin about him?
For the record, I didn't vote. The two party system is broken, the election system is broken, the media is broken and the education system is broken. I am not going to endorse such a broken system by participation. Fix it or expects more chaos to come.
Yet I am not a liberal, in fact, I don't like any liberal that likes to talk politics. They cannot agree to disagree because liberals are always right and they are so numbskull they don't see their own hypocrisy. Take this NYTimes article for example: billionaires (especially Trump) assault media freedom. Who did more of the assault? Did Trump make comments about Obama & Hillary's skin color, hair, facial expressions or even last name? No. Yet if you watched any late night TV in the past few months all those things have been said about Trump, including piece about his erotic relationship with Putin. Can you imagine the protest and riot that will ensue if Trump talked about Obama and Hillary the same way liberal media has been talkin about him?
For the record, I didn't vote. The two party system is broken, the election system is broken, the media is broken and the education system is broken. I am not going to endorse such a broken system by participation. Fix it or expects more chaos to come.
5
Perhaps Trump did not make comments about Obama and Hillary himself. Although he did not attack Hillary's hairstyle and pantsuits, I recall pretty brutal comments from Trump "crooked Hillary" "jail her" [a criminal], etc.)--not to speak of the comments he made of fellow Republican candidates's wives and genitals. I don't recall ever the level of discourse going so low. In any case, if you do not recall Trump making unsavory comments about Obama and Hillary, neither did the latter make them of Trump. The liberal press may have, but so has the Conservative media. Perhaps you have not listened to Brannan's programs.
The ruling elites and what were (historically) "mainstream media", either owned by them or serving primarily their interests in a calculated pretension of democracy and freedom of expression enjoyed monopoly or oligopoly on owning these big bullhorns and channels of information.
The way they continue to discredit and intimidate anyone who dares not to parrot the official narrative and PC views of the world with repugnant labels is not only but it is reminder of controls and propaganda those who experienced communism can recognize all too well.
Fortunately, like Dems, who are now declaring themselves not a national, but only a coastal party, liberal media playing a divisive "identity" policy card betting on winning support from selected minorities, continue to loose the true mainstream.
The way they continue to discredit and intimidate anyone who dares not to parrot the official narrative and PC views of the world with repugnant labels is not only but it is reminder of controls and propaganda those who experienced communism can recognize all too well.
Fortunately, like Dems, who are now declaring themselves not a national, but only a coastal party, liberal media playing a divisive "identity" policy card betting on winning support from selected minorities, continue to loose the true mainstream.
2
Sometimes I simply don't understand the comment practices -- a comment to another person's post I made shows up on the thread. But a comment I wrote to stand alone, and I assure you there was nothing offensive or off-topic about the post, a comment I wrote when there was only 3 posts up?
It's nowhere to be found.
It's difficult to be part of a conversation, if hours later, a comment still hasn't appeared...surely, you would understand that, NyTimes, and do a bit better?
It's nowhere to be found.
It's difficult to be part of a conversation, if hours later, a comment still hasn't appeared...surely, you would understand that, NyTimes, and do a bit better?
2
I find it humorous that Trump is hoping to control and subdue the press with relaxed libel laws...while his election was due in part to insulting fake news websites that made outrageous lies.
An important an incisive article, but as for Trump "routinely misrepresent[ing] and twist[ing] facts," that may be a huge understatement. It seems that if one looks hard enough one can always find him making completely contradictory statements. It is a principle of logic that anything can be proved from contradictory premises. This is Trump's modus operandi. Therefore, is there are any point to reporting anything at all that he says? It would certainly diminish the risk of a libel lawsuit if the press refused to report anything he says.
A recent Pew survey found that only half of Trump backers agreed that it was important in a strong democracy that “news organizations are free to criticize political leaders.”
this is very discouraging
this is very discouraging
1
It's been the same for some time. Control the press, control the message.
Controlling the press is the first step any tycoon, tyrant, or dictator takes in controlling the message.
Controlling the press is the first step any tycoon, tyrant, or dictator takes in controlling the message.
It's interesting that he used the media for free advertising all through his campaign yet complains when he doesn't agree with the message. I would have thought he would have been concerned when the media reported his lies, diatribes and hate speech. Evidently, he considered any news better than none. He should have been embarrassed by the way the media portrayed him. Yet he basked in the limelight it provided for free. The president-elect is a two-faced hate-monger who is childishly vindictive, a self-described sexual predator and a monumental liar. There is nothing that can be said or printed about him which would be slanderous or libelous. He is a lot worse. His reputation can not be sullied.
3
“'It just wasn’t about punishment of these individuals and Gawker,' one juror told ABC after the [Hulk Hogan] trial. 'You had to do it enough where it makes an example in society and other media organizations'.”
All righty, then--let's go after the alt.right media! They tell vicious, outrageous lies about public figures all the time--it's pretty much their journalistic model--and they have to know that their stories aren't factually true (or maybe they confuse facts with their delusions?).
All righty, then--let's go after the alt.right media! They tell vicious, outrageous lies about public figures all the time--it's pretty much their journalistic model--and they have to know that their stories aren't factually true (or maybe they confuse facts with their delusions?).
How many voters stayed home because they believed the press-that Hillary had an 80% chance of winning? The press is unwilling to address this issue and instead is trying to placate us by trying to "normalize" this totally corrupt president elect.
26
Voters made their own decision, no excuses. If they had watched Michael Moore they would have heard Trump was going to win. If they had looked at extreme right media - the same. You cannot blame the press for people being too lazy to go and vote, there were also seats in the House and Senate - what about those?
15
I was as happy at 1:35 AM on Nov 8 - Nov 9 night when PA "flipped" to DJT as Nigel Farage was after Brexit results came in.
Dems and liberal media paid fair price for their years of playing or supporting "identity" politics leading to voters and readers in the Silent Majority turning away from them.
Dems and liberal media paid fair price for their years of playing or supporting "identity" politics leading to voters and readers in the Silent Majority turning away from them.
1
Billionaires have already succeeded in this dubious endeavor. In recent times a good example was Hearst. Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch also come to mind when I think of billionaire press manipulators. There have been dozens more throughout our short history who surely did change history to their liking or advantage. Trump is the most recent torch bearer of mis-information. The press has always been swayed or owned by the very wealthy. Along with judges, politicians and law enforcement officials. Same ole, same ole. What's that old saying? Money talks. And everyone has a price.
6
Don't forget the Koch bros, or Richard Mellon Scaife.
This is simple, if a person sues a journalistic source for libel, and loses, then he should have to cover both parties legal fees. If they have all the money in the world and don't care so be it, but they should not be able to put the journalistic site out of business over vindictive pettiness. With a POTUS who is an awful sore loser and bully who has proven how low he will go over and over the news outlets needs this protection.
20
Trump is basically a thin-skinned tyrant with no integrity, knowledge, relevant governing skills or intellect, and the emotional control of a 5 year old.
Of course he will threaten & try and control, if not destroy, the media. Naturally he'll refuse to explain or justify anything. This is what fascists do.
The other billionaires mentioned are scary too, though no sane person can have sympathy for gawker, which was a purveyor of sleaze and gossip that contributed nothing to a dialogue on topics of importance to the country.
The Times and other organizations must be vigilant and every day report accurately and in detail what the con artist is doing. There will be no truth from him or his administration. No sane person can believe anything they say.
Vigilance by a free press (by all of us really) is more important now than ever, or our country could well become literally an Orwellian government, with trump - and his unaware, duped supporters - its founder. As a country we better really wake up, Now.
Of course he will threaten & try and control, if not destroy, the media. Naturally he'll refuse to explain or justify anything. This is what fascists do.
The other billionaires mentioned are scary too, though no sane person can have sympathy for gawker, which was a purveyor of sleaze and gossip that contributed nothing to a dialogue on topics of importance to the country.
The Times and other organizations must be vigilant and every day report accurately and in detail what the con artist is doing. There will be no truth from him or his administration. No sane person can believe anything they say.
Vigilance by a free press (by all of us really) is more important now than ever, or our country could well become literally an Orwellian government, with trump - and his unaware, duped supporters - its founder. As a country we better really wake up, Now.
33
How long will it be before Trump, following in his confrere Putin's footsteps, takes even stronger measures against his critics in both media and among the citizenry at large by eliminating them altogether?
18
Abuse of the libel laws as a strategy for attacking news agencies is a very serious issue, but to conflate this abuse with what is underlying the plummeting distrust of corporate-media agencies is quite misleading.
For the past several years, the Times, in particular, has been reporting on the economic "recovery" allegedly taking place in this country. If this inaccuracy could somehow be turned into a libel case, the Times would lose.
For the past several years, the Times, in particular, has been reporting on the economic "recovery" allegedly taking place in this country. If this inaccuracy could somehow be turned into a libel case, the Times would lose.
8
The Times publishes the sources & metrics on which it bases its claims. And you base your counter-claims on, what? Alternative media narratives? Because they're not all created equal, and among the principle values of a liberal arts education is the ability to evaluate the differences.
1
Trump is looking more and more like another billionaire - President Taft...or was it Heft.
2
Whether you see it as Trump as a tribune of the people taking on media elites, or champions of the free press holding to account the President of the United States—or just an overhyped feud to sell papers, it’s good for our republic.
2
Can you imagine how he will use his CIA/NSA eavesdropping capabilities against his enemies and after the furtherance of his own wealth? How he'll use FBI & IRS investigations in the same way? My god this will be a spectacle for four years. I hope the values of our democracy survive...our republic, actually...
10
All the things that weren't of concern to the coastal media during eight years of Barack Obama are suddenly areas of grave concern when the coastal media finds itself in opposition.
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. And all you had to do in the first place was simply be fair to both sides.
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. And all you had to do in the first place was simply be fair to both sides.
12
false equivalency
1
Well, as long as the news is honest, thoroughly checked, serves the interest of the public, like the Washington Post's Watergate reporting, people will believe. Other news NOPE, and media has as much to serve as the government. Most of the news now a days is biased, especially when the ownership is so corporate, and it is all about money and ratings. Just give us credible news and we are all for it, don't make us search 100 +1 article to analyze!
5
If only Americans didn't voraciously demand the 100 frivolous articles by consumption it would be much easier. The big bad corporate media is a lot like big bad politicians in that it just mirrors the masses' preference, so when we don't like what we see, we have only the source to blame.
I didn't read the article, no doubt it is another anti-Trump article but I will say this.....
After reading day after day leading up to the election, the lopsided columns in favor of Clinton, and now continuing to gin up opposition now that the election is over, I can say that I would not trust the media to give a fair assessment.
And this coming from someone who was a Sanders supporter.
Trump should stay with Twitter, at least his message will not get distorted.
After reading day after day leading up to the election, the lopsided columns in favor of Clinton, and now continuing to gin up opposition now that the election is over, I can say that I would not trust the media to give a fair assessment.
And this coming from someone who was a Sanders supporter.
Trump should stay with Twitter, at least his message will not get distorted.
12
The article isn't about trump. The story begins well before trump - Trump can say whatever he wants, and it doesn't make it true. I've lived in countries that have one leader and one voice - that's not where we want to go - regardless of your ideology.
1
I believe Donald Trump to be one of the most vile individuals in our midst. And the fact that he was elected to be the President of our nation, a serial criminal is what he is-whether assaulting women, ripping off, shamelessly mind you, contractors he hired to assist him in his quest to make his millions. It just boggles my mind. And then add how he bragged about not paying taxes, stiffing the very individuals who voted for him. Don't they realize he kept millions and millions of dollars out of their nation's coffers, money needed to keep our nation's locomotive running on all cylinders so their families can prosper. And then he bragged about it. And he's their hero, these voters that were labeled as being "low information" types? Really now, doesn't 'dumb' elbow it's way to the front of your brain when you think of Trump's "low information" voter?
34
hey, merc, if you "high information" voters are so smart, why did you lose on 11/9? Us dummies really want to know.
7
I'd say trump won for multiple reasons
Not much excitement for Hill -
trump represented change
the electoral college
Significantly better marketing from trump campaign
Not much excitement for Hill -
trump represented change
the electoral college
Significantly better marketing from trump campaign
We haven't really yet. There are still 2 million more of us. But who said intelligence was common? Now go ahead, self-sabotage a little more in righteous resentment at that, because you can't escape us, either.
"libel law can be a tool of revenge" and oppression and repression and control and disinformation and the curtailing of freedoms and the dumbing down and anesthetizing of future generations. It serves as a legal way to beat up on people, silence them. Corporations have long used this method to prevent the truth coming to light. "Bury them [opponents] in paper" is the expression until they go bankrupt or give up.
The US has already dropped down the freedom of press index to #41 keeping company with South Africa, Slovenia, Burkina Faso and Botswana.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
The US has already dropped down the freedom of press index to #41 keeping company with South Africa, Slovenia, Burkina Faso and Botswana.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
7
Dear NYT:
Thank you for everything but mostly for that thoroughly unattractive picture of Donald J Trump on the top of your banner. It doesn't quite do it, but it *almost* captures how ugly he is, not just on the outside, but deep in his soul.
I thought his pleas to not published ugly pictures was one of the most petulant, disturbing footnotes on an otherwise truly disturbing day and I am buoyed and thrilled that you are doing the exact opposite. It gives this fierce advocate of a free press a tiny little lift and it is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for everything but mostly for that thoroughly unattractive picture of Donald J Trump on the top of your banner. It doesn't quite do it, but it *almost* captures how ugly he is, not just on the outside, but deep in his soul.
I thought his pleas to not published ugly pictures was one of the most petulant, disturbing footnotes on an otherwise truly disturbing day and I am buoyed and thrilled that you are doing the exact opposite. It gives this fierce advocate of a free press a tiny little lift and it is greatly appreciated.
14
Who reads these days. Thinks? Sadly, the fourth estate is an anachronism or will be. Fake news trumped real news. Facebook could not control it. Trump would not have won 30 years ago. But he manipulated the media now, and his supporters voted for him regardless of his racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic rants. As a result billionaires and corporations feel confident that they can make people believe and accept what they are pushing. Legit media can't compete with Twitter, the internet, etc. It is not news, but propaganda. Political agit prop.
7
There is no question that we are facing an internal war between the one percent and the rest of our country’s population. A democracy cannot survive when all the power is one-sided. We have laws to try and equalize power and the power brokers are determined to change or eliminate them and/or the people who execute them. With very few exceptions, we have been very fortunate to have presidents who were respectable and honestly cared about our country and its people. We are now entering a new unchartered phase in our history where everything our family members in the military fought for is now at risk. Without a free and open media, there is no way to keep the people informed and rein in politicians or billionaires who overstep their authority, use their political or monetary power for personal gain or to destroy their enemies, and threaten our democracy. We are facing a new kind of terrorism that could implode our country and change our life as we know it.
13
First of all mister know it all, there are many more billionaires who were supporting Trump apart from the two the author mentioned as a sample. Is that your ignorance or are you doing the same Trump has been doing the last year, lie and lie and lie some more, make threats in addition call the other names, and then follow up with libel suits. It is your favorite dictator's game and they all have been playing it from the moment they reached power. Russia, Turkey, North Vietnam, Philippines, India, Egypt and that list goes on forever and these are the ones that are living.
There are many things wrong in your piece, but what is at the core is that you don't believe that leaders who are clearly wrong for this world should not be criticized.
For your information it might be a good thing to read up on countries and their leaders who took control of the media and manipulated it so much that it became almost important to walk trough their world of mud and true to find out what is true.
One thing that is true is this attempt to control the press has been going on for a very long time, remember the Koch brothers, or can nobody write about them either.
You know nothing about billionaires (which Trump is not, only in his world he believes he is) and therefor all your arguments are Byzantine.
There are many things wrong in your piece, but what is at the core is that you don't believe that leaders who are clearly wrong for this world should not be criticized.
For your information it might be a good thing to read up on countries and their leaders who took control of the media and manipulated it so much that it became almost important to walk trough their world of mud and true to find out what is true.
One thing that is true is this attempt to control the press has been going on for a very long time, remember the Koch brothers, or can nobody write about them either.
You know nothing about billionaires (which Trump is not, only in his world he believes he is) and therefor all your arguments are Byzantine.
Are you sure this in reply to my comment? I don't get the correlation.
1
The tone of this piece is unworthy of Bazelon. The reference to "a group of superrich Americans" is deliberately misleading. They are not a group in any meaningful sense. "Trump has been joined by at least two billionaires...." You mean they coordinated their actions? Bazelon's language will bring all sorts of weird and wonderful conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork.
I have another complaint too. Bazelon says she is shocked, shocked that lawsuits are used as weapons to be deployed against critics. But what else is new? It cuts both ways. Environmental groups and "human rights" activists have used the courts for years now to tie up construction and other infrastructure and to harass and persecute corporations (consider the appalling Steve Donziger and Terrence Collingsworth). Several millionaires or billionaires lost their shirts backing Donziger's lawsuit against Chevron -- including the powerful Boggs Blow law firm.
What is more, from where I sit, it looks like Gawker got its comeuppance. Rolling Stone too. So the Hogan sex tape was part of an "ongoing public discussion..."? A lawyer would seriously stoop low enough to make that claim? Isn't the world a better place because they have to pay damages to the plaintiffs that they indisputably wronged?
I would be fascinated to hear Bazelon's take on the state of journalistic ethics. Aren't anti-SLAPP laws an obvious case of favoritism to the press by politicians currying favor with it -- and grossly abused by it?
I have another complaint too. Bazelon says she is shocked, shocked that lawsuits are used as weapons to be deployed against critics. But what else is new? It cuts both ways. Environmental groups and "human rights" activists have used the courts for years now to tie up construction and other infrastructure and to harass and persecute corporations (consider the appalling Steve Donziger and Terrence Collingsworth). Several millionaires or billionaires lost their shirts backing Donziger's lawsuit against Chevron -- including the powerful Boggs Blow law firm.
What is more, from where I sit, it looks like Gawker got its comeuppance. Rolling Stone too. So the Hogan sex tape was part of an "ongoing public discussion..."? A lawyer would seriously stoop low enough to make that claim? Isn't the world a better place because they have to pay damages to the plaintiffs that they indisputably wronged?
I would be fascinated to hear Bazelon's take on the state of journalistic ethics. Aren't anti-SLAPP laws an obvious case of favoritism to the press by politicians currying favor with it -- and grossly abused by it?
14
I think America needs a refresher course on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because when it comes right down to it, those are the things that make America great, and we seem to have forgotten that fact.
8
Is Trump actually a "superrich American"? Other than him saying he is? Maybe the press ought to find out whether this is just another con?
4
The principal thrust of the article is absolutely correct. There are steps that journalists and their employers can take, however, i response to this threat. Assume from from the outset in the preparation of a piece about the rich and litigious that you are going to be sued and write the piece accordingly. There is much that can be done in the way a piece is written, without defanging it, to make a lawsuit less likely or easier to get dismissed. (For example, clearly delineating what is statement of opinion, providing its factual basis, and explaining how the latter supports the former.) Get good libel attorneys involved early. Be obsessive about documentation. Make only those accusations that you can support. Do not rely too heavily on sources with an ax to grind, and when you must use such sources (as often is often the case), take it into account, because the plaintiff will try to show that he or she is for that reason untrustworthy and you knew or should have known that, and you will need a response to that argument. Don't go overboard; leave some powder dry. Avoid a muckraking tone. Emphasize the public interest aspect of the subject matter and the ways the person criticized put himself or herself into the public sphere.
12
I still read the New York Times, and have subscribed for over 30 years. But I found the focus on email servers (80% of all media coverage of Hillary Clinton was about her emails--only one front page NYT report on her policy proposals, but Trump's were trumpeted on the front pages quite often) very much slanted in favor of Trump. People who complain about your "coverage" of him, complain about where you accurately presented facts about him.
The man didn't hold a press conference--he put out a YouTube video.
The only hope we have is this: Trump LOST the popular vote by millions; Democrats got more votes in Senate and House races that the GOP did. So guess what, newspapers and news media, the Republicans are not really popular and you should direct your attentions more to those who actually are much better liked.
The man didn't hold a press conference--he put out a YouTube video.
The only hope we have is this: Trump LOST the popular vote by millions; Democrats got more votes in Senate and House races that the GOP did. So guess what, newspapers and news media, the Republicans are not really popular and you should direct your attentions more to those who actually are much better liked.
7
Popular vote means nothing. And whining about it is akin to a football fan trying to spin a loss into a victory because their team gained more yards. If the rules of the game awarded victory for most yards (popular vote), then strategy, game plan, etc., would be geared towards that and only then would total yards mean anything.
On January 20, 2009, The New York Times reported that its parent company, The New York Times Company, had reached an agreement to borrow $250 million from Carlos Slim, a Mexican businessman and the world's second richest person....As of March 7, 2016, Slim owned 17.4% of the company's Class A shares, according to annual filings submitted by the company....
Your title says Billionaires vs. the "Press" --- Appears to be "Billionaires vs. Billionaires".
Your title says Billionaires vs. the "Press" --- Appears to be "Billionaires vs. Billionaires".
9
It is not "nice" of you to bring up such important facts when NYT are trying so hard to present themselves as "watchdogs of democracy", not profit desperately seeking enterprise, on top of that mainly serving the ruling elites interests.
1
Personally I can't shed tears over the gawker lawsuit. I wouldn't call that journalism.
9
In this post-truth, reality show of America, lies and unfulfill-able promises won. Whether from desperation, or lack of critical thinking skills, or indoctrination, it happened.
Not current news, nor is the power of wealth. Nor are the omissions, whether intentional or misguided, of our fourth estate, including NYT.
It is for those who value rational discourse to keep our wits and our values. It is for our press to speak truth to power, choosing their words with due caution - and to honestly soul search their own guiding principles.
It is for those with power or wealth, who also value our founding principles, to fight to hold onto a place of truth and democracy for all of us.
It is for the rest of us to at least know we are not alone.
Not current news, nor is the power of wealth. Nor are the omissions, whether intentional or misguided, of our fourth estate, including NYT.
It is for those who value rational discourse to keep our wits and our values. It is for our press to speak truth to power, choosing their words with due caution - and to honestly soul search their own guiding principles.
It is for those with power or wealth, who also value our founding principles, to fight to hold onto a place of truth and democracy for all of us.
It is for the rest of us to at least know we are not alone.
The late Christopher Hitchens said many times that he sought and obtained US citizenship for one reason: no libel laws, constitutionally protected free speech. He must be rolling in his grave.
Yesterday Kelly Ann Conway was asked about the claims that Trump's meeting with the media hadn't gone smoothly, to say the least. Her response was to deny it and assert it was all very pleasant and then she stated: "that meeting was supposed to be off-the-record" followed by "and they better watch it!". This is not the first time Ms. Conway has made these veiled threats against reporters/media.
Time for a line in the sand, NYT. Are you going to abdicate your constitutional role in order to avoid Trump's tantrums.
(Query: do you not have rules of court that provide a successful defendant indemnification by the plaintiff of all legal costs?)
Yesterday Kelly Ann Conway was asked about the claims that Trump's meeting with the media hadn't gone smoothly, to say the least. Her response was to deny it and assert it was all very pleasant and then she stated: "that meeting was supposed to be off-the-record" followed by "and they better watch it!". This is not the first time Ms. Conway has made these veiled threats against reporters/media.
Time for a line in the sand, NYT. Are you going to abdicate your constitutional role in order to avoid Trump's tantrums.
(Query: do you not have rules of court that provide a successful defendant indemnification by the plaintiff of all legal costs?)
8
The media is all we have to hold government officials accountable. The media isn't perfect, but what in life is? Nothing, not even Mr. Only-I-Can-Fix-It, although he would surely dispute that assessment.
8
Fortunately toxic billionaires are not the only examples of the species.
A true philanthropist seeking to promote the interests of American democracy at a fundamental level might best begin by buying, endowing and then cutting loose a major newspaper, so that journalism can fully take precedent over futile profit-seeking in this new era.
There are plenty of choices of walking-death in the newspaper industry but none are beyond saving, yet. There is still vital human capital in place but this is a temporary situation.
Several philanthropists working together to preserve and extend our journalistic heritage might prove the saviors of our system of governance.
A true philanthropist seeking to promote the interests of American democracy at a fundamental level might best begin by buying, endowing and then cutting loose a major newspaper, so that journalism can fully take precedent over futile profit-seeking in this new era.
There are plenty of choices of walking-death in the newspaper industry but none are beyond saving, yet. There is still vital human capital in place but this is a temporary situation.
Several philanthropists working together to preserve and extend our journalistic heritage might prove the saviors of our system of governance.
2
"The Media" lied to people throughout this campaign about the potential outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Why should anyone believe them now - or feel sorry for them? I sense that they - the bi-coastal elite publishers, news anchors and reporters are struggling to stay relevant as they are finally faced with someone - Trump - who doesn't feel the need to cater to them. Legal assault on the media? Hardly.
9
Didn't lie. Reported the results of legitimate mainstream pollsters- plus Hillary has bested DJT by approaching 2 million votes, so the polls were right.
We need the media to keep our democracy. We are on the same ship.
Who checks the media? Are these lawsuits a way for citizens (likely only wealthy) to challenge the media's potential abuse of the 1st Amendment? Is it wrong to let the courts decide whether there has been a violation. Many media members seem to take the position that only they should police themselves. I don't know if I feel comfortable with that.
Finally, that the Prez-elect "routinely misrepresents and twists facts" does not mean that the media is acting in accord with the standards set out in Sullivan. There is no relation between the two.
Finally, that the Prez-elect "routinely misrepresents and twists facts" does not mean that the media is acting in accord with the standards set out in Sullivan. There is no relation between the two.
4
See "Citizen Kane".
In the beginning was William Randolph Hearst. In the end was Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos, Jerad Kushner and Sheldon Adelson.
In the beginning was William Randolph Hearst. In the end was Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos, Jerad Kushner and Sheldon Adelson.
4
I am 75 years old.I have never seen such a campaign of dishonest and/or outright lying in covering a candidate as was produced by the Times and the rest of the major Liberal news media.Simply outrageous! It was as grossly divorced from reality as was their pro-Obama swooning in 2008 when they all bowed down to the second coming of their Messiah.
9
I believe there is an epidemic of lost critical thinking in this country. An insidious cause is the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, which demands 24 hour "content" and of course, ratings which equals $$$. Because of the necessity of many media outlets to make money, it becomes the prime directive, and quality news is subjugated in its wake. Ratings means getting attention, attention requires shallow sound-bytes. The public brain trust suffers atrophy because of this. You are what you read, and we now have a President-Elect who does not.
7
Don't shoot the messenger!
How does one cover someone who calls Mexicans rapist, Muslims terrorists, veterans losers, laughs about groping and attacking women, revels in torture - waterboarding and worse, who whips up anger and hate, Who tries to de-legitimize President Obama and applauds Putin. Gets crowds to scream with hate and anger. Increases racist hate crimes. Appoints his children as advisors and some of the most prejudiced people to positions of power. The list is very long and it doesn't appear to be coming to an end.
True, The media has lost an edge, journalists are less courageous more in bed with corporations and power players, there are less deep investigation. The NYTimes could up its game,have given more space to Bernie Sanders, to vision and plans for the future of the US, used less emotionally laden words in some articles. But what are people suggesting it re-write what Trump says and does to make it more palatable? Appear less extreme? Whitewash him?
People need to do some research, think critically, read right, left and center.
The media is not spoon-feed for the masses, I was taught to always take what you read with a pinch of salt and search out other sources, analyze, be objective before coming to an opinion. Even history is re-written as new facts come to the fore.
What is frightening is that freedom of the Press and freedom of thought, ideas and opinions are being delegitimized, attacked and people are actually buying it.
How does one cover someone who calls Mexicans rapist, Muslims terrorists, veterans losers, laughs about groping and attacking women, revels in torture - waterboarding and worse, who whips up anger and hate, Who tries to de-legitimize President Obama and applauds Putin. Gets crowds to scream with hate and anger. Increases racist hate crimes. Appoints his children as advisors and some of the most prejudiced people to positions of power. The list is very long and it doesn't appear to be coming to an end.
True, The media has lost an edge, journalists are less courageous more in bed with corporations and power players, there are less deep investigation. The NYTimes could up its game,have given more space to Bernie Sanders, to vision and plans for the future of the US, used less emotionally laden words in some articles. But what are people suggesting it re-write what Trump says and does to make it more palatable? Appear less extreme? Whitewash him?
People need to do some research, think critically, read right, left and center.
The media is not spoon-feed for the masses, I was taught to always take what you read with a pinch of salt and search out other sources, analyze, be objective before coming to an opinion. Even history is re-written as new facts come to the fore.
What is frightening is that freedom of the Press and freedom of thought, ideas and opinions are being delegitimized, attacked and people are actually buying it.
8
For all the folks complaining here (with some justification) about the media (what they did to Bernie; how they are "corporatist"; how they concentrated excessively on HRC's emails, etc.), there is still one fundamental point which we lose sight of at our peril: independent original journalism (like the NYT and Washington Post), whatever its perceived failings, is absolutely critical--and now more so than ever--as a bulwark against the fascistic leanings of this incoming administration. We fail to support the NYT and Washington Post at our peril.
10
A sad and truly ominous state of affairs... shades of Berlin in the 1930s and Iron Curtain in the late 1940s in terms of control of the media and information itself...
But perhaps if the "legitimate" media had done a better job of reporting factually and aggressively pointing out the many, many lies of Trump and his gang, we'd have had a very different election outcome?
Instead, the media (desperate for ratings, advertising, and/or clicks) trumpeted constant "Trump says..." headlines, sometimes to the exclusion of anything else and also made constant false equivalency comparisons between Trump and Clinton.
The media also insisted on constantly labeling Trump as "outspoken," "populist," "on/off message," and even "mischievous", as if he was some honest, plain-speaking populist, when NOTHING could be further from the truth!
Why didn't the media identity Trump for the monstrosity that he was/is -- utterly unfit to be president -- and not shortchange the public by parroting what "Trump said" and not exposing all the Big Lies?
The "free press" dropped the ball!
How about honestly facing up to that failure? (Even if it may be too late to save our democracy)
But perhaps if the "legitimate" media had done a better job of reporting factually and aggressively pointing out the many, many lies of Trump and his gang, we'd have had a very different election outcome?
Instead, the media (desperate for ratings, advertising, and/or clicks) trumpeted constant "Trump says..." headlines, sometimes to the exclusion of anything else and also made constant false equivalency comparisons between Trump and Clinton.
The media also insisted on constantly labeling Trump as "outspoken," "populist," "on/off message," and even "mischievous", as if he was some honest, plain-speaking populist, when NOTHING could be further from the truth!
Why didn't the media identity Trump for the monstrosity that he was/is -- utterly unfit to be president -- and not shortchange the public by parroting what "Trump said" and not exposing all the Big Lies?
The "free press" dropped the ball!
How about honestly facing up to that failure? (Even if it may be too late to save our democracy)
9
Billionaires Vs. the rest of us. Wether media, laws, justice, health care, education, food, shelter if you have money you will get it. The "rules" do not have to be obeyed if you have money. And that includes the billionaires who control the media. Truth in journalism does not apply if it doesn't make money. IN the era of Trump, he does whatever he wants with NO CONSEQUENCES. Money talks. Unfortunately, we have to live with it.
2
I find this article very alarming for a number of reasons. The fist being that suppressing the media is the initial step in forming a fascist government, the second is the suppression of voting rights. We already are seeing signs of voter suppression and we are fast becoming an oligarchy. The signs that Trump is showing in his cabinet choices does not indicate that he's going to change things for the better. A free and open press is essential if we are to retain our democracy no matter what the Trump crowds want.
11
"suppressing the media is the initial step in forming a fascist government"
I find political correctness suppressing any diversity of views (the same taking place on college campuses, corporate board rooms, most of public meetings) across the country and for too many years now to be not only alarming but also a very unpleasant déjá vu from the experience of living under communism.
Compared to what we have here now, in some way, communist were amateurs in propaganda and "soft persuasion" massage as they were amateurs in running the economy.
I find political correctness suppressing any diversity of views (the same taking place on college campuses, corporate board rooms, most of public meetings) across the country and for too many years now to be not only alarming but also a very unpleasant déjá vu from the experience of living under communism.
Compared to what we have here now, in some way, communist were amateurs in propaganda and "soft persuasion" massage as they were amateurs in running the economy.
1
The most important role in the future of a democracy is a free press. Any pressure from the ultra rich to get preferential treatment by the press is a criminal act that needs, must be addressed as such. Not just thrown out of court or dismissed, but prosecuted under the first amendment. I urge the very wealthy that believe in a free press to help provide the deep pockets to overcome the threats and attacks from Trump and his like.
Trumps remarks on public media have been proven many times to be false and intended to do harm. They meet the very definition of libelous intent. He should be investigated, sued and charged in each and every case. If convicted, he should be impeached. I am positive the evidence is there in the public record.
Trumps remarks on public media have been proven many times to be false and intended to do harm. They meet the very definition of libelous intent. He should be investigated, sued and charged in each and every case. If convicted, he should be impeached. I am positive the evidence is there in the public record.
6
This is all very distressing. This point in particular: "The first is a figure like Thiel, willing to place bets on lawsuit after lawsuit until he hits on a winning combination of facts, judge and jury."
That underscores the well-known fact that justice in American jurisprudence is far too vulnerable to money. It deeply intensifies the frustration of those of us, from the indigent man in the streets to the valiant professionals in corporate journalism, who simply want impartial judgment in legal matters of fact.
Most distressing though is that Trump, who like Thiel has not hesitated to use his wealth to distort justice in his favor, now has the potent authority of the presidency to weaponize in his quest. Trump now seems unstoppable in his efforts to subdue the press. The prospect of totalitarian control of information is now frighteningly closer to reality, as is the likelihood of destructive influence on the lives of disinformed Americans.
That underscores the well-known fact that justice in American jurisprudence is far too vulnerable to money. It deeply intensifies the frustration of those of us, from the indigent man in the streets to the valiant professionals in corporate journalism, who simply want impartial judgment in legal matters of fact.
Most distressing though is that Trump, who like Thiel has not hesitated to use his wealth to distort justice in his favor, now has the potent authority of the presidency to weaponize in his quest. Trump now seems unstoppable in his efforts to subdue the press. The prospect of totalitarian control of information is now frighteningly closer to reality, as is the likelihood of destructive influence on the lives of disinformed Americans.
15
For the sake of increasing traffic to your website, you created Trump!
It is not the same calling the devil than see the devil coming.
It is not the same calling the devil than see the devil coming.
5
NYT - Thank you for insisting on an "on-the-record" meeting with Mr. Trump. We need a strong free press.
8
If the press buckles under the pressure of rouge wealthy patrons of political sophistry the losers will be ordinary Americans - both blue and red voters. The Accidental President, whom Mitt Romney called-out as a fraud and conman, is NOT going to improve the lot of his loyal followers. The Chinese will have little concern as it watches the leadership of the west walk-away from free trade and military commitments. The wealthy avatars of America have more in common with wealthy Chinese than they do with everyday Americans. Tax reductions and "coal subsidy" planned by Mr. Trump will stimulate a race to the bottom in global tax and environmental policies; and easier for global wealth to buy hard American assets - real estate, T-Bills.
The unorganized colony of patriots will seek out legit news media and ivory tower 'liberals' to scapegoat for Trump's failed regime. American politics has changed and will continue a slow-motion spiral into a deeper gutter as long as ill-informed voters remain a tool of self-serving money and global interests.
The illusion of national 'born again' nationhood (1776.2) will dissolve into politico-sectarian conflicts. All the while, wealthy folk will be holding court in virtual walled communities immune by classless taxpayers that Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley best framed in her comment: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes". The Fourth Estate is the last bastion of defense of the American Constitution. Failure is not an option.
The unorganized colony of patriots will seek out legit news media and ivory tower 'liberals' to scapegoat for Trump's failed regime. American politics has changed and will continue a slow-motion spiral into a deeper gutter as long as ill-informed voters remain a tool of self-serving money and global interests.
The illusion of national 'born again' nationhood (1776.2) will dissolve into politico-sectarian conflicts. All the while, wealthy folk will be holding court in virtual walled communities immune by classless taxpayers that Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley best framed in her comment: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes". The Fourth Estate is the last bastion of defense of the American Constitution. Failure is not an option.
1
Trump is a shrewd and cunning marketer who played the media brilliantly from his announcement of candidacy. The media gave him $2 billion in free coverage and he rode that into the highest office.
What disgusts me even more than this is how the media is now normalizing and sugarcoating what to every level-headed, clear-thinking person is vile and despicable. Are you ever going to call out the "alt right" for what it is: Neo-Nazism?
What disgusts me even more than this is how the media is now normalizing and sugarcoating what to every level-headed, clear-thinking person is vile and despicable. Are you ever going to call out the "alt right" for what it is: Neo-Nazism?
7
You (the corporate owned and operated media) created this monster. Now you (and the rest of us) have to live with him. Your profits were more important than fairly and accurately covering all of the Presidential candidates in 2016. You knew the damage that was being done to this country by legitimizing a bigot and a crook like Trump, but you did it anyway. You followed the cash which led you to non stop news coverage of everything that came out of a Trump orifice, and Hillary Clinton (to the absolute abandonment and out right shunning of news coverage for Bernie Sanders or any other candidate). Job well done, you ensured Americans would have a "choice" for President of two hated, unwanted, crooked, corporate Presidential candidates. Thanks Corporate News Media, thanks a lot
3
We've been listening to rabid outrage from the alt-right about their Second Amendment rights. Where is the outrage about the FIRST Amendment? Where is the outrage about trying to control and suppress free speech and a free press? Breibert news abides by none of the standards of objectivity inherent in a credible press--and yet D.J. Trump is complaining about the New York Times? PBS? Why, because they dont regurgitate everything he wants to see written about himself? That, my friends is the beginning of the fall of a democracy. Fight it, and fight it hard.
11
"Breitbart announced last week that it was “preparing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against a major media company” for calling Breitbart a “ ‘white nationalist’ website.”"
Well, then every other major and minor media company should start referring to Breitbart that way in a show of solidarity (plus it's true)! What does PEN have to say about this?
Well, then every other major and minor media company should start referring to Breitbart that way in a show of solidarity (plus it's true)! What does PEN have to say about this?
7
President elect has won by a large margin. This democratic decision put a person into power, whose mentality is profoundly anti-democratic, anti-social and anti-state. We heard only negative headlines until now. Fiscal evasion, speculation, intolerant racist attitude etc. Mr Trump not only excels in antisocial attitudes, many physicians have already presented their psychiatric assessments of his extravagant psyche. Narcissistic personality with agressive, psychopathic traits. A prophylactic psychiatric exam of would-be candidates should be a required safety-feature in the interest of the nation. It is easier to become US president than to get a car license, provided you are stinking rich. Intellectual and moral suitability are never checked. Are we heading towards the united estates of america in the delusional perception of a senile speculator ? Experienced, shrewd and ruthless politicians worldwide will exploit any inapt leadership to their advantage.
4
After reading through the comments on this article, I'm pretty sure Donald Trump showed up for his meeting with the NYT today and personally selected most of the 'NYT Picks' while the regular moderators were out to lunch.
I'm hoping the fact-checkers ate at their desks.
I'm hoping the fact-checkers ate at their desks.
2
This is more mainstream media arrogance making the victimizer the victim.
The press has brought this upon themselves with their corruption, hubris and barely concealed partisan, biased “journalism.” Trump was treated like the devil incarnate. Americans want to know if anything can be done about a “news media” that appropriated to itself a crusade against him that had all the hallmarks of fanatical zealotry.
Thank God for the Internet, now under contrived assault by the mainstream media for “fake news.” Ho much fake news has been published by the old media, including Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”? One of the perpetrators of that hoax continues as a high profile foreign correspondent. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
The press has brought this upon themselves with their corruption, hubris and barely concealed partisan, biased “journalism.” Trump was treated like the devil incarnate. Americans want to know if anything can be done about a “news media” that appropriated to itself a crusade against him that had all the hallmarks of fanatical zealotry.
Thank God for the Internet, now under contrived assault by the mainstream media for “fake news.” Ho much fake news has been published by the old media, including Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”? One of the perpetrators of that hoax continues as a high profile foreign correspondent. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
9
Agreed.
Not only "embedded" media folks in unjustified Iraq invasion and occupation but also on the very eve of elections trumpeted "80% Clinton's chance of winning" and most things in between wold qualify as "fake news".
Manipulations, highly arbitrary selection of "issues" and always according to "identity politics" and PC mantra ... NYT and historically (fortunately increasingly less so) "mainstream" media are factories and supermarkets of fake news, not reflecting the Silent Majority experience.
Not only "embedded" media folks in unjustified Iraq invasion and occupation but also on the very eve of elections trumpeted "80% Clinton's chance of winning" and most things in between wold qualify as "fake news".
Manipulations, highly arbitrary selection of "issues" and always according to "identity politics" and PC mantra ... NYT and historically (fortunately increasingly less so) "mainstream" media are factories and supermarkets of fake news, not reflecting the Silent Majority experience.
2
The problem can be summed up in the over-used and non-specific "racist" label. Surely the media can do better than to label large swaths of Americans as racist.
9
I imagine your discomfort stems from the fact that you voted for this racist. It may be that you are experiencing the dawning realization of what you helped create. If the shoe fits.
3
I find your cheap, but by PC-approved, swipe at Kevin, not to be "fit to print."
2
Look. Somewhere along the line, people began confusing TV shows with journalism. The result was "the media," a catch-all phrase that allowed TV "reporters" without portfolio (or ethics or training) to place themselves under the same umbrella provided in the Constitution for the NYT and other legitimate newspapers. (It's significant, of course, that Trump didn't invite any print people to his "media" showdown.) But then, he's admitted he's not a big reader. Trump doesn't read newspapers or, it appears, much of anything else. In company with his supporters, he gets his news, he told a TV interviewer, "from you guys." So please remember, NYT editors, that, especially during the next four years, newspaper publishers will be our guys; the only credible source of information we'll trust to report to us Trump and corrupt, self-absorbed One Percenters in Congress and on Wall St. are really doing -- both for themselves and to the rest of us.
6
I read the piece in The New Yorker about the press meeting with Trump. Trump whined about a lot of things but seemed particularly upset that the news printed photos that showed his double chin. Nice to see that Trump has important things on his mind. How can the press not show his double chin if he has a double chin? I suppose he thinks it's unfair to him that they don't airbrush his photos before publishing them.
7
Everything that exists on this planet needs a preditor in order for it to survive and stay healthy. Take them away only causing a species to overgraze, become weak and succumb to elements they normally should not have to fear. The Press is not different from anything else, nor should it be.
The purpose of the media is to share information about society, but over time it has been to offer narratives about what is going on in the country and the world. When you read a news article from an establishment like the New York Times, it includes statements to put information in context of wider events and statements that summarize popularly held conclusions.
These narrative based elements have corrupted the media and turned it into an echo chamber of political and sectarian voices because context and popularity are not universally held truths.
While the New York Times claims that Trump has made racist and totalitarian statements, there are tens of millions of Americans who disagree. Same with many of the stories cited in this article. The very idea that the Times, like virtually every other media outlet regardless of political bent, feels that it is entitled to treat political and cultural biases as reality simply because the "right" people agree is much, much more disturbing than Trump's petty libel suits.
The amount of grandstanding and self-righteous declarations coming from media outlets about freedom of press is laughable. Every article like this is evidence of the media's crime of fighting for its own survival even as it ignores the voices of the people it is supposed to serve. Several times it is mentioned just how upset people are with the media today, and not ONE reflection as to why that anger might be justified or how to fix it.
These narrative based elements have corrupted the media and turned it into an echo chamber of political and sectarian voices because context and popularity are not universally held truths.
While the New York Times claims that Trump has made racist and totalitarian statements, there are tens of millions of Americans who disagree. Same with many of the stories cited in this article. The very idea that the Times, like virtually every other media outlet regardless of political bent, feels that it is entitled to treat political and cultural biases as reality simply because the "right" people agree is much, much more disturbing than Trump's petty libel suits.
The amount of grandstanding and self-righteous declarations coming from media outlets about freedom of press is laughable. Every article like this is evidence of the media's crime of fighting for its own survival even as it ignores the voices of the people it is supposed to serve. Several times it is mentioned just how upset people are with the media today, and not ONE reflection as to why that anger might be justified or how to fix it.
6
Speak for yourself. I've never been prouder of the New York Times. All is forgiven for the bad reporting leading up to the Iraq War.
1
The NYT seems preoccupied with its place in the universe. It has endured far worse than Trump in its history and I would think the circulation department would welcome a few law suits from the loathsome Trump. It will be good for business.
3
Regardless of the outcome of any of this, it's gonna be a long 4 years.
5
I think the real question is whether the Gawkers and National Enquirers of the world are entitled to the same protections as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. And that depends on whether they have the same editorial standards which they currently clearly do not. In places like Singapore libel suits are regularly used to destroy political enemies. Certainly that would be unacceptable in this country. But that doesn't give blanket protection for lies and unfair attacks. And if the serious press in this country wants to put their eggs in the same basket as Gawker they put themselves at risk because I think most Americans find personal attacks claiming to be journalism unfair.
7
Are there no Democrat billionaires?
I suggest they hammer The National Enquirer and Fox News every time they throw nonsense at us. Fight fire with fire.
I suggest they hammer The National Enquirer and Fox News every time they throw nonsense at us. Fight fire with fire.
5
"Distinguish between a news source that employs fact checkers and takes its mission to inform seriously and hacks whose only goal is to inflame emotions and get clicks."
Which is the New York Times?
Which is the New York Times?
4
The press aided and abetted Trump because it was good for business. It appears in the long run that it might not be so good for business.
4
He has the emotional quotient of any run-of-the-mill villain. Even children in the audience at a Batman movie can recognize the psychopathy. Not so much all the trumpers out there, I guess. He has begun dismantling our free press, his next target will be the judicial branch, then religious and political leaders, after that educators and access to them. When the people who voted for him finally wake up, their only defense will be that they knew nothing. History will not believe them. This is what my mother-in-law escaped in 1930s Germany.
13
If only the NYT, Washington Post, et al could go a full week without mentioning Trump at all -- give him and his team not one whit of attention -- he might implode. What tweet-storms would would emanate from Trump Tower if the press he despises would ignore him altogether. I know it can't be done; we dare not remove the watch dog. But what a delight it would be to deprive this bratty little boy of all media attention and watch the fits he would throw.
8
Hoping the press...yes 'press' hangs tough. Cut through the lies and manipulations, stop buying alt-right themes as 'just another viewpoint', and do your jobs. Since when do we accept the conflicts of interest, outright aggression toward any criticism, and childish venality in our leaders and institutions?
7
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” - George Orwell
Democracy depends on the former. The press/media increasingly practices the latter. American democracy suffers.
Democracy depends on the former. The press/media increasingly practices the latter. American democracy suffers.
6
I just signed up for the NYT and the Washington Post in light of King Trump's inclinations.
3
The reaction of conservatives to the media has been brought about by the media itself. All one had to do was listen and read the established media during this election cycle to know just how biased the reporting was. The New York Times, a once great objective newspaper, became a cheerleader and biased reporter for Hillary Clinton. It should be obvious to its readers and especially to its publisher and editorial staff what a disaster this has been for the paper. Just look at how you assessed Hillary Clinton's chances of winning. You said it was over 90% just before the voting took place. Your lack of objectivity caused you to misperceive what to some of us was obvious, i.e. it was going to be a very close election. And then you send an email, attempting to exonerate yourself, but no apology, and no acknowledgement of your abject failure as an objective news source.
3
That email wasn't intended for you, Louis. It was intended for people like me who thought they abrogated their responsibility by not holding Trump to account enough. Thankfully they intend to change their ways. I've been a subscriber for decades but I may give subscriptions out for the Holidays, along with memberships in the ACLU.
Is the continued use by the Times of the term 'alt-right' to describe Breitbart the result of Breitbart's threat to sue anther media outlet for calling them a "white nationalist" organization ? In this piece about the power of the super-rich to maintain dominance, the term alt-right is evidence of the power of libel chill.
1
Wide discrepancies in wealth distorts justice, from petty infractions that can lead to years of pre-trial detention to the subject of this article, how struggling media face destruction when they challenge entities with deep pockets. Investing a few million to terrorize your adversary is chump change for those with billions.
This explains the growth of social media based shock news, that probably won this election as soundbite content is becoming more palatable to larger segments of society. Every five to four partisan decision by the Supreme Court is an expression of this increasing partisan divide, as each side could find copious precedent to validate their views.
Two variables, judge and jury exist in every case. One side stands to lose an insignificant amount of it's wealth, while the other could be wiped out. Over time wealth not only prevails against justice, it defines it.
AlRodbell.com
This explains the growth of social media based shock news, that probably won this election as soundbite content is becoming more palatable to larger segments of society. Every five to four partisan decision by the Supreme Court is an expression of this increasing partisan divide, as each side could find copious precedent to validate their views.
Two variables, judge and jury exist in every case. One side stands to lose an insignificant amount of it's wealth, while the other could be wiped out. Over time wealth not only prevails against justice, it defines it.
AlRodbell.com
1
Perhaps the media can go back to reporting, instead of lecturing in the hopes of shaping opinions.
5
Every citizen who both cares about protecting the First Amendment and has the financial means should subscribe to one or more news publications of strong repute. It's unfortunate, but we've reached the point where supporting journalism and journalists is a type of activism.
7
I'm not getting this. I understand the urges of public figures to squelch stories or allegations of sordid behavior, and that the freedom of the press is a sacred trust to enable an informed electorate.
But the true reason the very rich can threaten by bankrolling lawsuits or filing them with infinite budgets is because any and all brushes with the legal community, from trying to fight a ticket to defending oneself in court for criminal charges, to being sued or suing, are all phenomenally expensive, and that community never holds itself to account for that.
I get it that law school is expensive, but it's expensive because the expectation is of high incomes for its graduates. I get it that discovery and research for cases is expensive, but it's mostly expensive because of all the lawyers working on the case not all the clerks.
From unrepresented possible refugees in Immigration Court, to media outlets, to ordinary citizens who are forced into plea bargains and simply can't afford to exercise their Sixth Amendment rights anymore, the common thread is the extraordinary dollar price of any brush with lawyers and the legal community.
Emily Bazelon points out some very significant concerns. She also pointed to the D.A. in the Aaron Swartz case, and never to the draining of millions of dollars from him as a proximate contributor to his suicide.
The billionaires couldn't do what she warns about if it didn't cost so insurmountably much to seek justice or defend innocence.
But the true reason the very rich can threaten by bankrolling lawsuits or filing them with infinite budgets is because any and all brushes with the legal community, from trying to fight a ticket to defending oneself in court for criminal charges, to being sued or suing, are all phenomenally expensive, and that community never holds itself to account for that.
I get it that law school is expensive, but it's expensive because the expectation is of high incomes for its graduates. I get it that discovery and research for cases is expensive, but it's mostly expensive because of all the lawyers working on the case not all the clerks.
From unrepresented possible refugees in Immigration Court, to media outlets, to ordinary citizens who are forced into plea bargains and simply can't afford to exercise their Sixth Amendment rights anymore, the common thread is the extraordinary dollar price of any brush with lawyers and the legal community.
Emily Bazelon points out some very significant concerns. She also pointed to the D.A. in the Aaron Swartz case, and never to the draining of millions of dollars from him as a proximate contributor to his suicide.
The billionaires couldn't do what she warns about if it didn't cost so insurmountably much to seek justice or defend innocence.
35
Freedom of the press to publish facts and opinions related to policy is indeed crucial.
Freedom of the press to publish personal foibles - or even embarrassing truths? Not so much.
The press has the power to *selectively* publish embarrassing facts about candidates they oppose, and refrain from doing so about those they support. I see no problem with allowing the press to be challenged in that regard.
A free press is indeed crucial - but not sufficient.
The mainstream press must also remain *relevant*. Mainstream newspapers have supported economic policies which have resulted in ever increasing financial and employment insecurity among voters. The fact that the news media were taken by surprise by the success of Trump, is evidence of their isolation from economic reality. Support of protectionist and sovereignty killing trade agreements, support for cutting SS and Medicare, support for less-than-full employment, legitimizing the assertion that the wealthy should have veto rights over selection of Presidential candidates (NYT referred to donation races as winning the "invisible primary") - these have increased economic insecurity, made the press less relevant, and helped give us President Trump.
Freedom of the press to publish personal foibles - or even embarrassing truths? Not so much.
The press has the power to *selectively* publish embarrassing facts about candidates they oppose, and refrain from doing so about those they support. I see no problem with allowing the press to be challenged in that regard.
A free press is indeed crucial - but not sufficient.
The mainstream press must also remain *relevant*. Mainstream newspapers have supported economic policies which have resulted in ever increasing financial and employment insecurity among voters. The fact that the news media were taken by surprise by the success of Trump, is evidence of their isolation from economic reality. Support of protectionist and sovereignty killing trade agreements, support for cutting SS and Medicare, support for less-than-full employment, legitimizing the assertion that the wealthy should have veto rights over selection of Presidential candidates (NYT referred to donation races as winning the "invisible primary") - these have increased economic insecurity, made the press less relevant, and helped give us President Trump.
2
And who are you going to give the power to decide what is relevant and what is a personal foible? The agents of that same government? Sounds like a process ripe for abuse.
That is why there must be ABSOLUTE freedom of speech and the press.
I can't believe we have to argue this, but here we are, America. That's why all my gift money this year is going to the ACLU.
That is why there must be ABSOLUTE freedom of speech and the press.
I can't believe we have to argue this, but here we are, America. That's why all my gift money this year is going to the ACLU.
Surely this standard: 'a public figure has to prove that a false and damaging statement about him (or her) was published with “actual malice,” translated as “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.”' has been met in hundreds of statements by Donald Trump (and/or tweets) regarding Hillary Clinton, and other individuals including reporters. Why aren't charges being levied against him? There must be some Tai Chi, turning of the tables here. The counter-attacking mechanism perfected by Trump and Breitbart must be leveraged. It has been documented over and over that Donald Trump has lied more than any other candidate for the Presidency by a factor of 10. He needs to be held accountable in every direction. Please file suit.
2
The "nuclear" application of the frivolous lawsuit, so despised by the right.
How hypocritically on target!
How hypocritically on target!
This is nothing new and started long ago with William Randolph Hearst.
When the rich want to sway things ( especially politically ) , they just buy the messenger ( whatever medium it is ).
The 4th estate is constantly on sale for $3.99
When the rich want to sway things ( especially politically ) , they just buy the messenger ( whatever medium it is ).
The 4th estate is constantly on sale for $3.99
1
With T-rump as president elect, we will need "accurate" press coverage more than ever. Check facts and re check facts.
1
The law of deepest pockets goes against the principles of our Constitution and is in place in a number of ways, such as patent litigation. Since the word 'extreme' has added meaning, I hope the press will stay on task with extreme vigilance to ensure the rights of all Americans.
1
Every adult member of my household will now be getting their own Times digital subscription. I also plan to subscribe to the Washington Post.
5
hopefully the media will let him have it.
1
There is something absurd in that only 40% of the public trusts the media; the other 60% must trust conspiracy theorists, fake news, and social media for their news.
5
Why don't tax paying legal Mexican immigrants file a class action defamation suit against Trump for stating they are rapists and murderers? Is he too rich to sue?
3
The old saying, "Two can play that game as easily as one" comes to mind. If Trump can intimidate the media with a threat of a lawsuit what would stop a liberal politician from doing the same to Breitbart News. They post lies with an attempt to discredit and ruin reputations continually. There are plenty of liberals with deep pockets too. For those who were happy to see Gawker put out of business remember that it was really just a trial balloon to see if a jury could be swayed easily if distrust of the media is part of the lawyer's arguments. It looks like it worked judging from the comments here.
On another note: what would stop Trump from suing Breitbart? Broken Promise: Trump ‘Doesn’t Wish to Pursue’ Clinton Email Charges," reads the lead story headline on Breitbart.com. Trump cares about himself more than he cares about Bannon. He doesn't have loyalties except to his children and wife.
On another note: what would stop Trump from suing Breitbart? Broken Promise: Trump ‘Doesn’t Wish to Pursue’ Clinton Email Charges," reads the lead story headline on Breitbart.com. Trump cares about himself more than he cares about Bannon. He doesn't have loyalties except to his children and wife.
19
He has loyalties to his children and current wife only if they remain pretty and reflect well on him. Should they get old or fat or disabled or express an independence of mind, he would drop them like a stone.
2
Based on past experience, seems unlikely that he has loyalty to wife (#3)
1
Discredit and take down the free press. That's in the authoritarian playbook. We've seen it before in history. Fight it now, or lose our free press forever.
13
So, the on-again-off-again meeting with the NYTimes is on again. I would caution the Times that "off the record" means nothing to Trump. Do not accept the bait. Your words will be recorded somehow and, if needed, used to further his agenda.
3
Why does it feel like Donald Trump has already overstayed his 15 minutes of fame?
8
All we've ever known as Americans is free press, more or less. Since it's all we've known, it obviously doesn't seem particularly sacred to many Americans. You don't know what you've got till it's gone.
65
How dare they! Don;t they know that the only people allowed to disseminate information are the small number of super rich liberals who run the Times and NBC?
The hypocrisy of the left is mind-numbing.
The hypocrisy of the left is mind-numbing.
7
Really? Who is trying to shut down your sites? Who is suing Brietbart? Who is trying to limit the press? Who? did you even read the article?
It's like you all don't know yet: you're the bad guys here.
It's like you all don't know yet: you're the bad guys here.
1
I just renewed my NYT subscription recently. I #standwiththeNYT. A light to lead us through these dark times.
16
We stand with the NYTimes. We renewed our subscription two days after the election . It's our light - there is no Democracy without facts and transparency- please hold the line! We need you now more than ever to question and be vigilant. There is so much at stake when we slumber. And given you have to go to bat we will donate to your legal defense fund.
6
There is something sinister going on with Donald Trump and I am amazed that no one is seeing it....... I am scared.
8
The "crooked media" covers children being bombed in Aleppo, children killed in a bus crash in Chattanooga, devastation in Mosul, slain officers. Yes, they also cover Trump, his PUBLIC tweets, his PUBLIC appointments, his PUBLIC personality as he is a PUBLIC figure and has always wanted to be.
7
PS. I think you will get your focus, eventually, New York Times. I have faith in you, and you're all we've got!
5
Sorry NYT...you are a day late and a dollar short. Where were these pieces prior to the election? This story comes as no surprise to those reading The Nation or The New Yorker, but NYT ....?
10
Freedom of the media is paramount and Trump trying to threaten , bully them should not deter them
Sadly I see Trumps actions as the start of the slippery slope into a Republican dictatorship .
Congress will do nothing to rein in his obvious conflict of interest which would not pass muster in any Corporation.Ethical breaches will be ignored and suppression of the vote will continue . His base will not care.
Every one is talking of a infrastructure stimulus of a trillion dollars.
Yes we need it but spread over 10 years it is a mere fraction of the GDP , is it incremental to the $300 billion approved last year and how do we fund it ?
Any infrastructure increase will be offset by cyclical downturns in the Auto , housing industry, energy will stagnate , commercial real estate will fall victim to Internet sales.
Decreases in corporate tax and personal tax will help but there is not a chance it will be paid for by the 5 percent growth Trump boasts of.Then there is increase in health care costs, interest costs.
My point is as Trump fails to deliver on meaningful job growth in the rust belt then his base will enter into a season of great discontent.
Then they will see the merit of everything the media has been saying and must continue to say
Sadly I see Trumps actions as the start of the slippery slope into a Republican dictatorship .
Congress will do nothing to rein in his obvious conflict of interest which would not pass muster in any Corporation.Ethical breaches will be ignored and suppression of the vote will continue . His base will not care.
Every one is talking of a infrastructure stimulus of a trillion dollars.
Yes we need it but spread over 10 years it is a mere fraction of the GDP , is it incremental to the $300 billion approved last year and how do we fund it ?
Any infrastructure increase will be offset by cyclical downturns in the Auto , housing industry, energy will stagnate , commercial real estate will fall victim to Internet sales.
Decreases in corporate tax and personal tax will help but there is not a chance it will be paid for by the 5 percent growth Trump boasts of.Then there is increase in health care costs, interest costs.
My point is as Trump fails to deliver on meaningful job growth in the rust belt then his base will enter into a season of great discontent.
Then they will see the merit of everything the media has been saying and must continue to say
2
This article addresses a serious concern: Survival of free and fact-checked media will be critical for the survival of democracy.
In the 1930's, elimination of free speech and establishment of a highly organized propaganda machine were the first steps in the catastrophic chain of events in Germany that led to WW2 and the holocaust.
The unchecked social media add another layer of complexity since they allow the spread of unsubstantialed rumors and conspiracy theories at lightning speed and with unprecedented reach without anybody being held accountable.
In the 1930's, elimination of free speech and establishment of a highly organized propaganda machine were the first steps in the catastrophic chain of events in Germany that led to WW2 and the holocaust.
The unchecked social media add another layer of complexity since they allow the spread of unsubstantialed rumors and conspiracy theories at lightning speed and with unprecedented reach without anybody being held accountable.
8
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. What billionaire owns the New York Times?
9
The Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is the de facto owner of the NYTimes. He owns their bonds, whose face value is now likely greater than the fair market value of NYT. The value of the Sulzberger equity interest must be close to nil.
2
Well, the subtle, secret, hidden oracle which I consult, Google, popped up with this immediately:
"These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-...
You're welcome.
"These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-...
You're welcome.
1
Freedom of the press means freedom of the press... period. And any American is also free to criticize the press. Whining by the press about their detractors is the ultimate hypocrisy - so is anyone really surprised? An independent, unbiased, and credible press would have overwhelming support by the vast majority of Americans. Lose any one of these three and support diminishes. Most Americans believe the "mainstream" Washington and NYC press have lost all three. And not because some billionaire told us it was so... but because we have witnessed it first hand. We believe in a free press and want a free press... but our free press has been stolen from us. And we want it back.
3
Given that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits, brags that he uses suits to intimidate others and his dismal record as plaintiff in libel suits, why has he not been declared a vexatious litigant? He richly deserves that finding. What it achieves is requiring him to establish facts that would support a claim before he is allowed to proceed with any particular lawsuit. And for the other side of the coin, I believe Trump has violated many laws and statutes by advocating violence (you should punch them in the face), and engaging in hate speech - rapists .... He should be sued.
8
I do not understand, and did not understand, why the NYTIMES and other legitimate news sources covered every eruption of Twitter or every rally by Trump where he attacked the press or spouted his racist, divisive nonsense. Day after day, the cable news networks would play and criticize and publicise his ramblings, giving him all that press coverage that they could challenge with questions. Without that echo chamber, only his limited number of Twitter followers would have read him. If a candidate says, openly and often, that the press is corrupt and he will not deal with them, why not stop covering his unilateral pronouncements?
12
Better yet why did they not cover the issues and compare and contrast the positions of serious candidates?
Because even the NYT has become anti intellectual. See the great Shadi Hamid of Brookings on how Obama's White House elevated anti intellectualism. Complexities are reduced to simplistic, extreme positions. Think some immigrants should be grandfathered and some go? Then you are demonized as alt right or alt left, depending on who wants to demonize you. No serious discussion please, we are Americans.
Because even the NYT has become anti intellectual. See the great Shadi Hamid of Brookings on how Obama's White House elevated anti intellectualism. Complexities are reduced to simplistic, extreme positions. Think some immigrants should be grandfathered and some go? Then you are demonized as alt right or alt left, depending on who wants to demonize you. No serious discussion please, we are Americans.
Help us all to be better informed by doing a better job of reporting on all the people, the alt right, conservatives, Trumpers, Republicans, those in poverty, the billionaires, Wall Street. Like most of your readers I was totally stunned at the support in the election for Trump. And I understand their anger because I felt you had let me down.
5
The T should LOVE the NY Times. You literally printed every word that ever dropped from that twisted mouth. If you had iced him out the way you did Bernie we wouldn't be in this mess now.
18
Did you see the SNL with Tom Hanks as host? In a skit about the debates, "Trump" (Alec Baldwin) complains that the media is making him look bad. "Chris Wallace" (Hanks) asks "How are we doing that?". "Trump" answers "By reporting everything I say and do."
2
If you want a clear example of journalistic malpractice, look no further than the Gawker and Rolling Stone cases. I can't believe that the NYTimes believes that First Amendment protections should apply. Certainly all of the tests laid down in Sullivan were met in these two cases. The publications richly deserve their punishments.
When you defend the indefensible, your own stature is further diminished.
When you defend the indefensible, your own stature is further diminished.
11
This isn't an issue of polarization anymore, or an us vs them. People forget that business men continually push the legal limits of the law as far as the system will allow and father so long as it suits them. This action is motivated by habitual conditioning, and morality does not come into these decisions.
Why is it that with every single day and with every news story that breaks regarding the president elect we are shocked and awed? Liberals are too measured and too slow to act because morally they are outraged by his actions and assume that surely a human being resides within. However, the presidency will be viewed and treated as a business where morals, emotions, and humanistic actions have no place. He will stomp out all things that get in his way.
Trump will take away freedom of speech the first chance he gets. Americans will say that's impossible. And yet many thought his presidency was impossible.
Why is it that with every single day and with every news story that breaks regarding the president elect we are shocked and awed? Liberals are too measured and too slow to act because morally they are outraged by his actions and assume that surely a human being resides within. However, the presidency will be viewed and treated as a business where morals, emotions, and humanistic actions have no place. He will stomp out all things that get in his way.
Trump will take away freedom of speech the first chance he gets. Americans will say that's impossible. And yet many thought his presidency was impossible.
10
How chilling the thought of a controlled press in America, as if we were Russia!
I have always taken our free press for granted, but with the rise of fake news sites and the attack on real news investigational reporting , can't do that anymore. I will continue to subscribe to legitimate newspapers and pray they don't disappear.
I have always taken our free press for granted, but with the rise of fake news sites and the attack on real news investigational reporting , can't do that anymore. I will continue to subscribe to legitimate newspapers and pray they don't disappear.
8
The NY Times is complicit in Donnie's election by publicizing the stolen emails, day after day, after day. Having said that, the only media I trust at all is the NY Times, Washington Post and outlets like Mother Jones. You need to stand tough against this threat on the 1st Amendment. The Republicans aren't going to stand tough against Trump, the Democrats are wimps, so it's up to a few of you to keep this man with tyrant-leanings from totally trashing our Republic.
And just a suggestion - I think you really need to start digging into the lack of mental health of Trump. Why does he need his kids with him always?? What are they hiding?
And just a suggestion - I think you really need to start digging into the lack of mental health of Trump. Why does he need his kids with him always?? What are they hiding?
6
I don't know why the NYT and alleged "reporter's" keep trying to make Mr Thiel's funding of Terry Bollea's lawsuit against Gawker is an attack on freedom of the press. It strikes me as the same sort of myopia that destroyed the Clinton Campaign. While holding so tightly to this obviously false view you are very definitely missing the important factors here.
There is no comparison to the lawsuit filed by Trump against Mr.O'Brian and the lawsuit filed against Gawker. In the first case it was clearly and then admittedly an attempt by Trump to suppress and do injury to Mr O'Brian for his reporting. In the second case the defendant Gawker was not reporting or in any way a real Press outlet. The fact that they had some articles only proves they were using the 1st amendment to cover for their real intent; to bully and do harm to people who could not afford to defend themselves from the gossip and fallacy they posted. It does not matter whether or not Mr. Thiel was also getting some revenge what matters is that Gawker was abusing the first amendment NOT Mr. Thiel.
Think about it Mr Thiel had to help a millionaire to fund a winning case against them.
The real story is why it costs so much to hold publishers to account for clearly abusive of the 1st amendment, bullying, and socially destructive behavior.
There is no comparison to the lawsuit filed by Trump against Mr.O'Brian and the lawsuit filed against Gawker. In the first case it was clearly and then admittedly an attempt by Trump to suppress and do injury to Mr O'Brian for his reporting. In the second case the defendant Gawker was not reporting or in any way a real Press outlet. The fact that they had some articles only proves they were using the 1st amendment to cover for their real intent; to bully and do harm to people who could not afford to defend themselves from the gossip and fallacy they posted. It does not matter whether or not Mr. Thiel was also getting some revenge what matters is that Gawker was abusing the first amendment NOT Mr. Thiel.
Think about it Mr Thiel had to help a millionaire to fund a winning case against them.
The real story is why it costs so much to hold publishers to account for clearly abusive of the 1st amendment, bullying, and socially destructive behavior.
6
I graduate from law school this spring. The election has made me rethink the kind of law that I want to practice. I have been spending a lot of time thinking about what kind of lawyer I want to be and what cause is worthy of all the time, effort, and money that has been spent to give me a good education.
This article has clarified that for me. I will be defending people's right to free speech by working on anti-SLAPP cases. Strategic lawsuits to crush opposition are an abuse of the legal system and only reinforce the feeling of helplessness that many Americans feel. Defending whistleblowers, then turning around and winning damages and attorneys fees from powerful people trying to abuse the legal system seems like a worthy use of my life.
This article has clarified that for me. I will be defending people's right to free speech by working on anti-SLAPP cases. Strategic lawsuits to crush opposition are an abuse of the legal system and only reinforce the feeling of helplessness that many Americans feel. Defending whistleblowers, then turning around and winning damages and attorneys fees from powerful people trying to abuse the legal system seems like a worthy use of my life.
112
Godspeed.
Just try to stay relatively 'pure;' don't let the allure of power and money, or its glow subvert your principles.
Having said that, keep in mind that absolutism can lead to fetishist obsession with principles over people, and...
Finally, the slippery slope is not easily seen.
Just try to stay relatively 'pure;' don't let the allure of power and money, or its glow subvert your principles.
Having said that, keep in mind that absolutism can lead to fetishist obsession with principles over people, and...
Finally, the slippery slope is not easily seen.
1
I sincerely commend you for you are brave indeed. My biggest fear is that with Trump in the White House and him appointing very conservative Republican lawyers as judges, especially appointing a very conservative judge to the SCOTUS, will further encourage Trump to sue anybody that reports anything negative about him and embolden him to change the libel law as well. It then follows that Trump's actions in this regard will strengthen the resolve of the very rich initiating libel suits against reputable newspapers for the least negative or uncomplimentary remark or article. Trump seems already trying very hard to stifle the free press, reporters and especially great, well written and objective newspapers like The New York Times.
Please stay the course for we need lawyers like you and I do wish you all the best in your endeavor!
Please stay the course for we need lawyers like you and I do wish you all the best in your endeavor!
Bravo,Andrew!
Nothing more exciting than to watch and analyze the class warfare among the one percent when they turn on each other.
As Professor Murphy of the Trump University and Streets of New York Campus said-Too much of a good thing is never enough.
Now we will see who among the greedy, insane, and tortured by not having it all will succeed in this quality internecine battle. Friday night fights and Sunday football beware: you now have a real competitor.
One sure bet is that the American public representing the other 99 percent will not be winners. But then again, they never were.
As Professor Murphy of the Trump University and Streets of New York Campus said-Too much of a good thing is never enough.
Now we will see who among the greedy, insane, and tortured by not having it all will succeed in this quality internecine battle. Friday night fights and Sunday football beware: you now have a real competitor.
One sure bet is that the American public representing the other 99 percent will not be winners. But then again, they never were.
2
Did not JFK meet his end today in 1963?
First a president, then a Republic.
How fitting.
First a president, then a Republic.
How fitting.
1
"Meetings with the media". They are supposed to be about discussing facts and perspective for reporting , examining policy and approaches, not kowtowing to elected officials.
The media and the President-elect need each other, one for access to information, the other to explain approaches and point of view and progress or challenges to the public, those would be expected and positive outcomes.
Or else:
- the media can be used and manipulated by a being who craves attention
- wants to glorify his persona and achievements in the eyes of the public,
- seeks tight control of his public image,
- seeks to use the media to channels threats and intimidation.
It can work in all these different ways, and already has throughout the campaign.
If the media lets this president-elect dictate the one-sided terms of the interactions, we can forget about "free press". Whether they are delivering the goods or just ranting and threatening, the media's mission is to keep reporting, making complex issues more understandable, and holding officials accountable.
The media and the President-elect need each other, one for access to information, the other to explain approaches and point of view and progress or challenges to the public, those would be expected and positive outcomes.
Or else:
- the media can be used and manipulated by a being who craves attention
- wants to glorify his persona and achievements in the eyes of the public,
- seeks tight control of his public image,
- seeks to use the media to channels threats and intimidation.
It can work in all these different ways, and already has throughout the campaign.
If the media lets this president-elect dictate the one-sided terms of the interactions, we can forget about "free press". Whether they are delivering the goods or just ranting and threatening, the media's mission is to keep reporting, making complex issues more understandable, and holding officials accountable.
3
Two points:
The Gawker case is no example you want to bring. It was an outrageous invasion of privacy that Gawker thought it could get away with because it figured Hulk Hogan didn't have the resources to go all the way with the case. The media usually has a lot more money than the people it reports about. If anything, Thiel leveled the playing field. Gotta love the former editor quoted here: “What Thiel’s covert campaign against Gawker did was to invisibly change the terms of the risk calculation.” In other words we were ok with taking our chances harming, this guy so long as we knew he couldn't sue us. Nice.
As far as Trump goes, the NYT prominently published for months on its home page the 90% (give or take) chance of a Clinton victory even on the day of the election. In the weeks prior and now following to the election there was an all out editorial assault on Trump and by extension his voters. So the NYT is woefully out of touch with a large portion (if not quite a majority) of voters and/or unabashedly biased against them. Either way any surprise how negatively you might be viewed?
The Gawker case is no example you want to bring. It was an outrageous invasion of privacy that Gawker thought it could get away with because it figured Hulk Hogan didn't have the resources to go all the way with the case. The media usually has a lot more money than the people it reports about. If anything, Thiel leveled the playing field. Gotta love the former editor quoted here: “What Thiel’s covert campaign against Gawker did was to invisibly change the terms of the risk calculation.” In other words we were ok with taking our chances harming, this guy so long as we knew he couldn't sue us. Nice.
As far as Trump goes, the NYT prominently published for months on its home page the 90% (give or take) chance of a Clinton victory even on the day of the election. In the weeks prior and now following to the election there was an all out editorial assault on Trump and by extension his voters. So the NYT is woefully out of touch with a large portion (if not quite a majority) of voters and/or unabashedly biased against them. Either way any surprise how negatively you might be viewed?
9
if we had Donald's tax returns, we'd know. As it is, it certainly appears that the Trump Organization is all lawyers and accountants. The lawyers sue enemies and the accountants make sure they pay no taxes. All the rest is marketing.
2
Trump is not going to "use" the media. He's going to render the old MSM irrelevant, as he did in the campaign. Instead of relying on the media gatekeepers that have shown themselves to be profoundly biased (Democrat operatives with bylines) to filter his remarks, instead of interrupting regular TV programming with an address from the Oval Office, Trump connects directly to the voters, on their schedule. Most recent example, his YouTube address outlining the top priorities in the first 100 days. The whole thing done in under 3 minutes. Perfect for our ADD nation.
The business value of the MSM is going to continue to plummet as Trump reduces its importance and significance. You brought this on yourselves, NYTimes, when you decided to abandon journalism and become the PR arm of the Democrat party. Don't deny it, you bragged about it last August.
The business value of the MSM is going to continue to plummet as Trump reduces its importance and significance. You brought this on yourselves, NYTimes, when you decided to abandon journalism and become the PR arm of the Democrat party. Don't deny it, you bragged about it last August.
8
If Trump is tightening libel laws and suing those that discredit him, can Obama sue him for calling him the "creator" of Isis? Or saying he isn't born in the US? The hypocrisy is overwhelming
15
There was a leader who went after the press which did not conform to his views right before WW2 in Germany, yeh, chilling!!!!
8
My husband's grandfather was an anti-Hitler journalist in Vienna who ended up in a concentration camp for 6 years.
5
Keep the pressure going on this president-elect.
6
You know Hitler was a tax dodger too.
5
In Russia and Turkey and many other countries, it is government power that threatens good journalism - even with physical harm and imprisonment. In the USA, it is too much money that plays the role of threatening good journalism.
Yet another case where too much wealth should be regulated along with minimum wage standards. Definition of too much wealth? When laws and rules that apply to everyone do not apply to those above a certain wealth level. Like using the legal system, the electoral system, regulatory system for their own greedy good because they can afford it - and their opponent can't.
Warning to the press: Self dealing and corruption within the White House and Trump Tower will now be Classified as "Top Secret" and in the National Security interests for the next decade.
Yet another case where too much wealth should be regulated along with minimum wage standards. Definition of too much wealth? When laws and rules that apply to everyone do not apply to those above a certain wealth level. Like using the legal system, the electoral system, regulatory system for their own greedy good because they can afford it - and their opponent can't.
Warning to the press: Self dealing and corruption within the White House and Trump Tower will now be Classified as "Top Secret" and in the National Security interests for the next decade.
4
Bye-bye, democracy! What Trump rightly knows about the American mediascape is that the country is more interested in "Dancing with the Stars" than the New York Times or the Washington Post. As Hemingway once observed, "I think we are an outfit headed for extinction."
3
NPR and the NYT did a lousy job this election cycle. I now go first to Democracy Now, The Intercept and even The Young Turks for real news before any of the other main stream outlets. I like the NYT for cooking and basic world news, but it is definitely not the voice of the people. Look at the ads in the print version, luxury items mostly. Look how long it took NYT to report on the North Dakota Pipeline. They have to cater to Wall Street and the wealthy I guess. I am 65 BTW.
6
This is all very scary.
5
A free press is always the first target of fascists.
13
Normally I would support the press but the bias has rapidly changed from subtle to over the top. When one can't tell the difference between the front page and the oponions section the press has a problem. WaPo has overtaken the NYTIMES as the worst offender, and this also includes the abc/nbc/cbs. T
7
I DID wonder about who was behind the "Know-Nothing" Press during this election. Now, can you tell me - Isthere a difference between the front page and the opinions section? In ANY paper? I can't wait for your answer.....
1
The second step towards autocracy is controlling the media. The first was controlling the uninformed masses.
12
And Trump is in charge of all the STEPS....thru the social media. Haven't you noticed? And "the uninformed masses"....that's easy: EVERYBODY.
This might be amusing if it didn't involve our president-elect.who should be above it all.
You ARE kidding..........RIGHT????.....Der Leader does not even know what "IT" is: you know, that which he should be above......
Thanks for an important article, but you really have to marvel at the way it concludes by citing Breitbart's former chief Stephen Bannon as seeing himself as an aggrieved plaintiff in a threatened libel suit.
I can't think of anyone more blameworthy for making a living from the use of "actual malice" to print false stories than Bannon, and that publication's loathsome founder, the late and not great Mr. Breitbart.
Have you no shame, sir?!
I can't think of anyone more blameworthy for making a living from the use of "actual malice" to print false stories than Bannon, and that publication's loathsome founder, the late and not great Mr. Breitbart.
Have you no shame, sir?!
4
This is Hillary-ous, NYT. You have a Slim chance of being credible again.
7
Saddle the press, media you have better control; all rogue nations that want to keep their power and avoid transparency do the same.You don't want people to think. Some foreign administrations take it a step further and murder political opponents, and feed their nation state fake news to keep nationalistic emotions high. The new era of dictatorship has embraced electronic media which plays on laziness (the lack of accountability or unavailability of fact-checking) and speed to facilitate non-truths. All of which work in the maintenance of power.
3
It took Putin only 4 years to dismantle independent media in Russia, now he meets with the heads of his state-run media to tell them what what to print and broadcast. Was Trump emulating his mentor Putin when he summoned the heads of U.S. media to Trump Tower yesterday?
10
I wonder why that all sounds so familiar???? I know, I know - I am 86 years old and have heard it all over and over and over......
2
As a former journalist, the assault on the press is highly troubling. The pressure applied by Trump and others isn't about money or reputation, or even truth and accuracy. It is about applying pressure on reporters and editors to be careful when they pursue articles. It is intended to produce a "chilling effect" on journalism to avoid controversial, revealing and serious enterprise reporting.
Why the Times (and the TV networks) agreed to meet with Trump in his tower is beyond me. As far as one can tell, the Trump Administration is launching war against the news media. In the fine tradition of Mencken, Salisbury and other journalistic giants, all I want to hear from the Times is a bold, aggressive stance against intimidation. Bring it on, Trump. Bring it on.
Why the Times (and the TV networks) agreed to meet with Trump in his tower is beyond me. As far as one can tell, the Trump Administration is launching war against the news media. In the fine tradition of Mencken, Salisbury and other journalistic giants, all I want to hear from the Times is a bold, aggressive stance against intimidation. Bring it on, Trump. Bring it on.
94
I guess you are less concerned about the assault on the conservative press.
Please. The only thing liberals care about is returning to the days when a few old white male liberals spun some partisan narrative for a gullible electorate to gobble up.
This is all about maintaining the liberal stranglehold on the media.
Please. The only thing liberals care about is returning to the days when a few old white male liberals spun some partisan narrative for a gullible electorate to gobble up.
This is all about maintaining the liberal stranglehold on the media.
1
Seriously, he could have delivered his fiat to them by infomercial.
Well, HE IS a slow reader....and a slow learner. Let us all begin to follow closely his decline and fall. It is coming....
1
The best solution to politicization of journalism, and consequent lowering of standards of accuracy, is audience abandonment. That is why I suggested to Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Baquet to create an Audience Advisory Board, not made up of loyal readers, but a random cross-section of Americans, in order to keep the editors from drifting off into elitist la-la-land. It would be tragic were the NYT to die a slow, painful death by audience attrition, and so the gray lady must take proactive steps to de-politicize the selection and framing of news pieces. An AAB would help with this task.
2
When I was a journalism major in college (many years ago), we were always told that The New York Times was one of the best written papers in the world. In my view, that description still holds. Thank you for your investigative pieces and for letting your readers see the world.
Clearly, Mr. Trump wants to destroy the press and become a Putin-like ruler with a controlled media. The Times and others like The Washington Post have obviously touched a nerve as Mr. Trump seems to want adulation all the time. Our core principles of democracy are at risk.
For those in this comments section who complain about media failures or liberal bias, I think neither is true. A critical element of a functioning democracy is a free press. I have lived overseas in countries where the press is controlled (or blocked) which leads to one leader or one party dominating everything with no controls. Without a free and functioning press, we will be faced with 24/7 coverage like Fox News praising Trump around the clock. We as a country will become like the Lego Movie where everyone is brainwashed about their leadership.
Clearly, Mr. Trump wants to destroy the press and become a Putin-like ruler with a controlled media. The Times and others like The Washington Post have obviously touched a nerve as Mr. Trump seems to want adulation all the time. Our core principles of democracy are at risk.
For those in this comments section who complain about media failures or liberal bias, I think neither is true. A critical element of a functioning democracy is a free press. I have lived overseas in countries where the press is controlled (or blocked) which leads to one leader or one party dominating everything with no controls. Without a free and functioning press, we will be faced with 24/7 coverage like Fox News praising Trump around the clock. We as a country will become like the Lego Movie where everyone is brainwashed about their leadership.
9
Sorry, bumpkins, it's THE PEOPLE who see through you.
5
"New York Times vs Sullivan" created the unaccountable media - it must be reversed.
1
It has been sad to read this paper in the last week. To watch as you gnash your teeth.
I hate to be petty but your reportage had a lot to do with the election of DJT.
You used your influence not to report, but to press for a certain outcome and this is the result.
I hate to be petty but your reportage had a lot to do with the election of DJT.
You used your influence not to report, but to press for a certain outcome and this is the result.
7
Proud to be a NY Times subscriber. NEVER trust any politician who goes to war against the media. The American people will find this out to their detriment. Nixon also hated the press. Trump is already exhibiting all the signs that his presidency is going to be an all-out assault against free speech and the pillars of democracy.
6
Terrific! Tremendous!
I'd feel sorry for journalists and journalism at large had real journalists and a journalistic field actually existed anymore; alas, there's no such thing.
So, it's with a big ol' shrug on my part that I will watch emotionlessly as Trump (the monster all you so-called "journalists"/glorified stenographers helped create) and Peter Thiel and their ilk sue all of you into oblivion, and basically turn the press in this country into a state-organized industry.
Good riddance. The end can't come soon enough.
Uhmurica gettin' great agin allready
duh duh duh
I'd feel sorry for journalists and journalism at large had real journalists and a journalistic field actually existed anymore; alas, there's no such thing.
So, it's with a big ol' shrug on my part that I will watch emotionlessly as Trump (the monster all you so-called "journalists"/glorified stenographers helped create) and Peter Thiel and their ilk sue all of you into oblivion, and basically turn the press in this country into a state-organized industry.
Good riddance. The end can't come soon enough.
Uhmurica gettin' great agin allready
duh duh duh
3
Andrew Carnegie used his wealth to build 2,811 libraries. That made America great. Now comes Trump & friends, who are on a full frontal assault against information. Very dangerous.
13
The surest way to for any citizen of any political persuasion to lose his or her freedom is to suppress the freedom of press and speech of others with whom you disagree. One's own degree of true freedom of thought, belief, and ultimate independence of action depends on being able to witness others exercise the same, even if completely different.
If you cherish your own freedom, you cannot insist that others read, view, think, write, and speak exactly as you, yourself. By requiring that of others as individuals or groups, you become the tyrant of your own tyranny. That is the ultimate destruction of the human soul.
You will not die by reading something with which you disagree. Your brain will not immediately seize upon hearing someone say something you judge faulty.
The truth is that no one would be reading or writing about any of this without the long arc of humans seeking discomforting freedom of thought, expression, and religion. To wish otherwise would mean that we would become like ants or bees in service of the ONE ruler.
You are equally free to read the NYT, WSJ, a crazy right wing or left wing publication or not. You can watch Rachel or Rush, or not. That is true liberty. Guard liberty.
If you cherish your own freedom, you cannot insist that others read, view, think, write, and speak exactly as you, yourself. By requiring that of others as individuals or groups, you become the tyrant of your own tyranny. That is the ultimate destruction of the human soul.
You will not die by reading something with which you disagree. Your brain will not immediately seize upon hearing someone say something you judge faulty.
The truth is that no one would be reading or writing about any of this without the long arc of humans seeking discomforting freedom of thought, expression, and religion. To wish otherwise would mean that we would become like ants or bees in service of the ONE ruler.
You are equally free to read the NYT, WSJ, a crazy right wing or left wing publication or not. You can watch Rachel or Rush, or not. That is true liberty. Guard liberty.
2
Thanks to Trump, I am not feeling good about freedom of the press. I wouldn't doubt that many of his supporters applaud billionaire lawsuits against journalists who failed to portray the plight of rust belt poverty and the continuing impact of loss of jobs and the dignity that comes with work.
If the media is cowed by Trump, fawning news will overtake fake news.
If the media is cowed by Trump, fawning news will overtake fake news.
Thanks to the bias of the NYTimes and the MSM, I stopped feeling good about freedom of the press about 25 years ago.
3
i just renewed my sub to NYT but this valued newspaper is not my only source of information.
News organizations have the RIGHT to publish any view point they please, it is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
American voters have the RESPONSIBILITY to learn the facts and by that they will have to source news from various media.
If the voters would have researched their facts before voting we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with the president elect.
Do not believe anything his puppets tell you. Get off the couch and learn what damage this presidency will do and has begun to do to the US.
News organizations have the RIGHT to publish any view point they please, it is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
American voters have the RESPONSIBILITY to learn the facts and by that they will have to source news from various media.
If the voters would have researched their facts before voting we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with the president elect.
Do not believe anything his puppets tell you. Get off the couch and learn what damage this presidency will do and has begun to do to the US.
11
Why aren't legal restrictions and journalistic standards applicable to fake internet news? Can Facebook be sued for libel?
7
TRUMP is assaulting the media? Is this headline a joke? If Trump published five lengthy essays every day attacking the NYT, he would not equal half the output of the Times' daily attacks on him.
23
But Paul, he gives them so much material to work with! It must be very hard to choose what to "attack".....of course, it seems to his followers that anything reported against their idol that doesn't fawn adequately is an "attack".
1
"TRUMP is assaulting the media? Is this headline a joke? If Trump published five lengthy essays every day attacking the NYT, he would not equal half the output of the Times' daily attacks on him."
Define "attacking."
If aggressive reporting on Trump's business dealings, the racist past and present of his cabinet appointees, his lack of intellectual curiosity on matters of great import to the American people are what you would term "attacks," You might be more comfortable living in Russia or North Korea. As an American I appreciate being well informed.
Define "attacking."
If aggressive reporting on Trump's business dealings, the racist past and present of his cabinet appointees, his lack of intellectual curiosity on matters of great import to the American people are what you would term "attacks," You might be more comfortable living in Russia or North Korea. As an American I appreciate being well informed.
Reporting the news is not an attack, it's journalism. There's a tremendous difference.
Grow up, get used to it, or move to a country that doesn't have a First Amendment. Goodness what a bunch of weenies. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Many of us (try to) live our lives by the old dictum "only do things that you would be OK seeing on the front page of the NY Times."
9
I've been reading my 10 free articles a month for the last year...and today I made my paid subscription. I'm sure you can all guess why. NYT: continue standing up to this brute. Acknowledge when he does right, but take take him full on when he does wrong. Don't stand down because of his threats of lawsuit..he thinks its his Trump card (pardon the pun) , but it became painfully clear to me this morning, the Donald Trump, truly misunderstands the spirit and the rule of law that is the Constitution.
13
No industry should self-govern; not the banks, not automotive, not pharmaceutical and definitely not the press. Who regulate the banks? FDIC, Federal Reserve. Who regulate auto industry? NHTSA, EPA, FTC. Who regulate the drug companies? FDA. Who regulate the press? No one.
The press have increasingly poor records as they attempts to compete with online news providers. Rolling Stone's fake report, Gawker outting homosexuals and NYTimes' partisan coverage of presidential election shows a press without regulation is a press unable to carry out its duty: unbiased reporting of facts.
The press have increasingly poor records as they attempts to compete with online news providers. Rolling Stone's fake report, Gawker outting homosexuals and NYTimes' partisan coverage of presidential election shows a press without regulation is a press unable to carry out its duty: unbiased reporting of facts.
7
This is all very disconcerting. However, with this new internet media free-for-all we're now living in, where an everyday pundit tapping away in his basement can reach the same audience as news organizations such NYT and Reuters, I wonder if these libel mechanisms could be used for good. Could those who publish stories calling Clinton, Sanders or yes, even Donald Trump a criminal without proof be punished for spreading known lies? Too many gross falsehoods swayed this election - perhaps this could be a way to bring it in line.
2
I've often felt that obsession to the point of distraction isn't a rational guide to decision making. Now were the NYT to drop its fancy collection of toy issues and get it s reporters looking at real issues faced by the majority of real Americans - but let's not get ahead of ourselves with too much reality.
3
Where is the investigative reporting? Why are we now just hearing about such individuals as Jeff Sessions and others? The only investigative reporting the NYT did was when some old tax files landed in their lap... And forget the local papers like mine, the Orange County Registrar which buried the news that Orange County had gone blue for the 1st time in 80 years on an inside page in the first section... They CERTAINLY aren't going to do any investigating of Trump...The Guardian US seems to be the only paper doing anything in the way of old school investigative reporting... And, you can join digitally for only $49/year!
And Trump now saying NYT is saying "hateful things"... Good, you better take a hard look at yourselves and reinvent 360 as this demagogue takes power and destroys our country...
And Trump now saying NYT is saying "hateful things"... Good, you better take a hard look at yourselves and reinvent 360 as this demagogue takes power and destroys our country...
3
I can think of a few ways to ensure that the press is healthy and vigorous. First, stop expecting news to be free. Nothing is free except sunshine. If you read a website for anything more than the most cursory glance, subscribe to it. Second, stop getting your news from Twitter and Facebook. They are both sewers with little of any filter among actual news, fake news and outright lies. Third, stop looking at websites which do nothing but report about celebrities and what Kim and Kanye tweeted. This is not news but junk and garbage. Fourth... you get idea.
13
I don't understand what is so hard about adhering to journalistic principles if you fancy yourself a, you know, journalist. Report unbiased, confirmed, facts without inserting your little tinged wording here and there to clandestinely sway people's ideas. Then, you get a public who respects you, and the need to write articles like this goes away. You act as if the uptick in journalistic losses in libel lawsuits is due to a dangerous crumbling of principles by the world that exists outside of journalism. No, it's not. It's due to a crumbling of authentic journalistic principles within journalism.
4
No kidding. Is the NYT really complaining that freedom of speech is being compromised because the rich can sue when their private sexual information and even acts are bandied about? Anything credible this article had to say got lost when they attack Thiel over Gawker.
Cheer up NYT, you can still destroy the lives of people who are not super-rich, without consequence.
Cheer up NYT, you can still destroy the lives of people who are not super-rich, without consequence.
What a disingenuous piece this is coming from the Times, a news organization that had no problem working with the likes of George W. to promote the Iraq war to its readers. And now Gawker is considered a legitimate news organization and Hulk Hogan's sex tape an important piece of journalism that should be protected under the constitution? And let's not even mention how the Times went out of its way to delegitimize a real presidential candidate (Sanders) in order to promote Clinton, an example of the elite that the Times likes to work with - rich but not too rich. Under Clinton, the Times would have had access. Under Trump, the Times will get nothing.
Well, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe now that the Times is going to be shut out of the millionaires club by billionaires, the Times can start to do some actual journalism rather than pretending to serve the public interest when really the paper has just been serving the interests of the "merely" rich and their advertisers.
Well, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe now that the Times is going to be shut out of the millionaires club by billionaires, the Times can start to do some actual journalism rather than pretending to serve the public interest when really the paper has just been serving the interests of the "merely" rich and their advertisers.
3
It burns my britches to no end that the same people who screamed blue-bloody-murder about Hillary's "plan" to attack the second amendment by sneaking into their homes and snatching their guns are totally silent about a very real attack on the first amendment. Total hypocrisy. I expect nothing less from conservatives and right-leaning media these days.
7
Yes, Gawker’s demise was unique and deserved; however, I don't expect that the NYTimes or other traditional media would stoop to publication of a sex tape. Yes, these are scary times for the traditional press. We, the public, are depending on traditional media to not shrink from the threat of billionaire bullies. If you have to raise rates to do so, I for one, will be glad to continue to pay rates necessary to support efforts to fully and faithfully report the news.
1
Heh. I don't want to believe it..but consider this. Three weeks before the election, the NYT gets mailed a copy of a Donald Trump sex tape. With another person besides his wife. Now So FL, I ask you seriously my friend, do you think the Times would publish it? :) I know they would.
Well, decency is officially dead in this country. If we lose the press, then this Reality T.V. Show really is a rerun of the fall of the Roman Empire.
3
Dear Mr. Trump-
Re: Your tweet-"The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high".
When I said in my NYT comment yesterday that the NYT was going to be "a complaint drag" which will be "dragging my spirit through the mud" for the next four years;
you failed to see that I was not blaming it on the NYT but on "the wends and wiles' of you.
Re: Your tweet-"The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high".
When I said in my NYT comment yesterday that the NYT was going to be "a complaint drag" which will be "dragging my spirit through the mud" for the next four years;
you failed to see that I was not blaming it on the NYT but on "the wends and wiles' of you.
Re. the News & Observer libel case:
Your author should have noted that:
"Four sources who spoke to [a N & O reporter] in 2010 testified in court they were either misquoted or taken out of context.
"The jury found that all six statements the paper published to be materially false – that is, that the sources never told [the reporter] what was attributed to them. To decide in [the plaintiff's] favor, the jury also had to find that there was strong, clear and convincing evidence that Locke and the N&O knew the statements were false or had serious doubts about their truthfulness.
Your author should have noted that:
"Four sources who spoke to [a N & O reporter] in 2010 testified in court they were either misquoted or taken out of context.
"The jury found that all six statements the paper published to be materially false – that is, that the sources never told [the reporter] what was attributed to them. To decide in [the plaintiff's] favor, the jury also had to find that there was strong, clear and convincing evidence that Locke and the N&O knew the statements were false or had serious doubts about their truthfulness.
3
If the people and the media do not push back hard about these tactics the oligarchs will steamroller us all and then where will be be??
3
The ultra-rich have run this country since it's inception. ..usually partly behind the scenes and sometimes as is the case now, front and center. It shouldn't be surprising that they will cling to their newfound power everyway they can.
Editors;
The project for the investigative journalists...is this:
What are the ties to Russia that Trump has...and just keep at it..
because our national security is at stake..
The project for the investigative journalists...is this:
What are the ties to Russia that Trump has...and just keep at it..
because our national security is at stake..
7
The polarization of the country in general is reflected in the media, which is a big part of the problem. Because people can choose to watch or read only those news organs that fit their political views, they are able to ignore all other perspectives. Often, they never even need to face counter-arguments to their own, entrenched views.
The NY Times is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Trump because his supporters, by and large, don't read it. Unless Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and other conservative media outlets start getting tough on Trump, he'll be able to continue painting a picture of the whole American news media as a liberal, urban, left-wing propaganda machine.
The NY Times is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Trump because his supporters, by and large, don't read it. Unless Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and other conservative media outlets start getting tough on Trump, he'll be able to continue painting a picture of the whole American news media as a liberal, urban, left-wing propaganda machine.
3
In my opinion he's Donald the DIT (despot in training)
4
Can the NYT go after the clown elect for his disparaging remarks about their publication? Maybe you could win "a lot of money folks... a lot of money."
4
The mainstream media has definitively proven themselves incapable of objective journalism. Where are the legions of reporters assigned to investigating the Clinton Foundation? They don't exist at the NYTimes as far as I can tell. And the ones who have gone to, for example, Haiti to look into it seem to wind up dead. Where is the courage and conviction of a classically liberal press? I'll tell you where: Shilling for liberal politicians and debasing conservatives at every opportunity. Lose your political presuppositions and actually do the work of journalists again.
5
The NYtimes was first to report the Clinton foundation's hand in the sale of uranium reserves to the Russian-state owned minerals firm. They broke the story. Who's being objective and who's being presumptive?
NYT and other publications are on the ropes not just because of the 1% war on journalistic integrity, but because you betrayed a deep sense of trust among your readership through your relentless and desperate search for more clicks.
You gave Trump his free publicity and followed his every move, thinking the spectacle was safe for ridicule; that worked out really well.
You gave Trump his free publicity and followed his every move, thinking the spectacle was safe for ridicule; that worked out really well.
10
Yes. Nailed it. They created what they thought was a straw man for their own benefit. Just didn't work out.
You describe what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP. A number of state's prohibit this already (in one fashion or another) under Anti-SLAPP legislation.
Generally, unless we're discussing the internet, defamation is a state law based claim. While you may be able to get malpractice like caps in a handful of states (California and New York come to mind), there is no reasonable expectation in most states. Most state houses would likely align with the Trump administration to keep the press vulnerable. Also, since truth is an absolute defense to defamation, vigilance at the inkwell is important. I don't think we want the press to have no accountability whatsoever.
It may be worthwhile for the news industry to counterbalance Mr. VanderSloot's organization with its own "self-insurance" fund. Collectivism may well be the answer to the lawsuits....a well-funded defense is a powerful antidote. The wealthy like nothing more than their money.....make it expensive for them to trot down this path.
"A fool and his money are soon elected." Will Rogers.
Generally, unless we're discussing the internet, defamation is a state law based claim. While you may be able to get malpractice like caps in a handful of states (California and New York come to mind), there is no reasonable expectation in most states. Most state houses would likely align with the Trump administration to keep the press vulnerable. Also, since truth is an absolute defense to defamation, vigilance at the inkwell is important. I don't think we want the press to have no accountability whatsoever.
It may be worthwhile for the news industry to counterbalance Mr. VanderSloot's organization with its own "self-insurance" fund. Collectivism may well be the answer to the lawsuits....a well-funded defense is a powerful antidote. The wealthy like nothing more than their money.....make it expensive for them to trot down this path.
"A fool and his money are soon elected." Will Rogers.
1
this new candidate elect is afraid of the press. an unscripted moment and even he might realize how unprepared he is and also how he really did not want this job. he thought running would be a lark. well you victor step up and be counted or be the constant joke you are starting to appear like. what a buffoon
7
Be aware that Mike Pence, and governor of Indiana tried to set up a state run news agency and prevent the free press from getting news directly using their own methods. I suspect with Trump's backing, he will try to do the same thing at the national level where they control the executive, legislative and soon the judicial branches of government. Please don't let us down.
148
I hadn't heard that about Pence, but there's no denying that Steve Bannon's background makes him a potential ready-made, in-house propaganda machine.
3
Back in journalism school, they had a name for libel suits that were never intended to succeed, but instead were intended to shut someone up. I think they were called SLAPP suits. Us neophyte journalists we were being warned about them and how they could be used to stop us from reporting certain things.
The fundamental problem is that our courts do not do a reasonable job of protecting individuals from persons or organizations with superior legal resources. Why would they: it's their gravy train. Whoever pays the piper the most has a massive advantage.
The fundamental problem is that our courts do not do a reasonable job of protecting individuals from persons or organizations with superior legal resources. Why would they: it's their gravy train. Whoever pays the piper the most has a massive advantage.
5
"Trump thrives on media attention, but it’s also clear that as the press sinks in the public’s estimation, any tough coverage of him will come to seem less credible."
Why does the press keep sinking in the public estimation? Is it only the fault of billionaires or does the press bear some responsibility?
Why does the press keep sinking in the public estimation? Is it only the fault of billionaires or does the press bear some responsibility?
3
I'm most interested in seeing how US media responds to President Elect Trump's assault on Freedom of Speech - surely an enshrined covenant within the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Democracy won't work without it...and it is something that truly does make America great.
The right to Freedom of Speech does not contain the words ' only if the comment is nice to the subject of the speech.'
Instead of President Elect Trump reading the Riot Act to the media - the US media should, in bold crimson ink, read the Riot Act to this incoming, criticism averse President.
The right to Freedom of Speech does not contain the words ' only if the comment is nice to the subject of the speech.'
Instead of President Elect Trump reading the Riot Act to the media - the US media should, in bold crimson ink, read the Riot Act to this incoming, criticism averse President.
10
At the end, this election was victory of the right wing propoganda machine. It is a powerful nexus of super rich corpotate types who want no regulations to hamper their greed, NRA, and powerful church leaders. They have managed with relentless tirade to discredit 'main stream media' (read free press), much as they went after Hillary with Benghazi & email, and before that - President Obama. in Texas they have even managed to change textbooks so that the future generation grows up in a cacoon of lies insulated from reality.
They have won & continue to win in brainwashing large swaths of people to act in every way against their own good.
It was chilling to read this morning of trump going directly after NYT now. I am afraid this feels like the beginning of America turning into a right wing fascist country. This is the beginning of us losing our cherished values of equality, freedom of thought & expression, diversity for a long time to come.
They have won & continue to win in brainwashing large swaths of people to act in every way against their own good.
It was chilling to read this morning of trump going directly after NYT now. I am afraid this feels like the beginning of America turning into a right wing fascist country. This is the beginning of us losing our cherished values of equality, freedom of thought & expression, diversity for a long time to come.
2
The big problem as I see it, is cause and effect. Dismantle the media, health care, EPA regulations, financial regulations, public sector hiring, etc., etc., will take years to fully reveal the damage done. Trump voters will be shocked one day to realize their Medicare is either gone or vastly less generous than it used to be, that the media is an utter distraction filled with lies to divert them from the truth, that the air they breathe and the water they drink makes them sick and there's no agency to address it. But it will be after Trump is gone, and then the fault of the inevitable Democrat who has to clean up the mess. Trump voters have very short memories ... and the press colludes in their own demise.
2
Maybe the Times and the Washington Post and other big media can deal with attacks from the rich and powerful, but the "army of citizen journalists" (whose work has been chipping away at those outlets) will think twice about criticizing or even investigating those rich and powerful just in the interest of their own survival. It is a three pronged attack on a free press: a paranoid and vindictive oval office, thin skinned billionaires, a skeptical population fed by the other two. I fear for our democracy.
2
Trump is successfully distracting us with white supremacists and assaults on the press while he extorts favors for his business from foreign leaders. The man isn't even president yet and he is already engaging in impeachable activities.
4
People need to start reading about Nero, the oligarch who aligned himself with the common people and used their support to rip the Roman Republic apart for his own enrichment and aggrandizement while providing little more than bread and circuses for the common people. Trump is on the same path. Silencing non-friendly voices through intimidation in the courts and on the streets was one of Nero's first tactics in making himself ever more powerful and destroying the Republic.
6
Clear-eyed reporting such as this will continue to be read by the educated among us and unfortunately do nothing to change the minds of Trump and his minions.
We have entered a dangerous period. Science and intellectualism is scorned while jingoism is exalted. Our country is divided along educational lines of all things and the continuing success of the educated classes is a thorn in the side of those that haven't prospered. This isn't just about race (although race is certainly a part of it.)
There a re many examples of societies which have allowed large chasms to open between the haves and have nots. The outcomes have not been pretty.
We have entered a dangerous period. Science and intellectualism is scorned while jingoism is exalted. Our country is divided along educational lines of all things and the continuing success of the educated classes is a thorn in the side of those that haven't prospered. This isn't just about race (although race is certainly a part of it.)
There a re many examples of societies which have allowed large chasms to open between the haves and have nots. The outcomes have not been pretty.
2
There is no question that we are facing an internal war between the one percent and the rest of our country’s population. A democracy cannot survive when all the power is one-sided. We have laws to try and equalize power and the power brokers are determined to change or eliminate them and/or the people who execute them. With very few exceptions, we have been very fortunate to have presidents who were respectable and honestly cared about our country and its people. We are now entering a new unchartered phase in our history where everything our family members in the military fought for is now at risk. Without a free and open media, there is no way to keep the people informed and rein in politicians or billionaires who overstep their authority, use their political or monetary power for personal gain or to destroy their enemies, and threaten our democracy. We are facing a new kind of terrorism that could implode our country and change our life as we know it.
9
It would appear that the media never learns. It didn't understand its' impact on the campaign where the Trump name was plastered over the front page of most high circulation newspapers, suckered by his vile invective. Now the travesty continues.
My plea is that the media continually remind itself of the Boston Globe Spotlight team and it's investigation of the Catholic Church. Keep digging and broadcast the truth. No one can or should stop investigative journalism.
My plea is that the media continually remind itself of the Boston Globe Spotlight team and it's investigation of the Catholic Church. Keep digging and broadcast the truth. No one can or should stop investigative journalism.
7
Does anyone think this despicable, unintelligent, system-gaming tyrant-elect will stop with the media? How about a comment made by an innocent opponent he doesn't like on The New York Times site, or The Washington Post site? How about a tweet that enrages him, or gets through his notoriously thin skin? Will the FBI be knocking on the door of those people who have the temerity to stand up to him and tell the truth in the face of corrupted power? Will Alec Baldwin face charges for hilariously, and expertly portraying the shyster-elect? America must stand up to him and demand he be accountable for all of his actions, before election and for however long he lasts in office, if he gets there.
The psychopathic con man, sexual predator and bully-elect can not be allowed to dictate the ability of the free press to both report on our president and tell the truth about his demented actions, comments or tweets. That he called the major network people together yesterday and gave them a hilarious and absurd dressing down speaks to his inability to take criticism and his attempt to control the media. It will never happen. Our venerable New York Times will always report on the lunatic actions of the shyster-elect. The public demands a transparent media and daily coverage of what can only be called the most abysmal episode in the history of our country. Long may America be free. Short may the influence of the sexual predator-elect be.
6
If the US ever led the world in "freedom of the press", it has not for a long time. Most rankings put the US near the bottom of the top quarter of countries with the most press freedom. And based on what has happened in the past year, that can be expected to drop. The public bears much of the blame for previous low standings, preferring entertainment over real news and insight. And the press catered to that, in the interest of ad revenue. Now we have more pretty faces than actual journalists, at a point when they are sorely needed.
4
In any war. The first thing the attacker goes after is the media. They knock out the broadcast stations, destroy the antennas.
In a coup, the evil gains control of these. It goes after reporters, bloggers, Theater, TV shows, etc. etc.
After that, the propaganda machine is all we can hear, read and watch. We will no longer be free, just a manipulated population who will no longer know the truth.
The minority takes over, against the will of the people.
The Electoral College should vote with the American people, thus preventing this inevitable blinding. We do not want Trump.
In a coup, the evil gains control of these. It goes after reporters, bloggers, Theater, TV shows, etc. etc.
After that, the propaganda machine is all we can hear, read and watch. We will no longer be free, just a manipulated population who will no longer know the truth.
The minority takes over, against the will of the people.
The Electoral College should vote with the American people, thus preventing this inevitable blinding. We do not want Trump.
6
In a global corporate coup, the billionaires buy all of the big media conglomerates and then make sure the policies they want are given good coverage and the policies they don't want are ignored or ridiculed. This began a few decades ago. These lawsuits are just a side show.
1
The Congress and courts need to enforce the constitutional right to free speech without interference or comments from the Executive branch. We are in the throws of a President elect that has a very thin skin and lashes out at his detractors with lies and false accusations. The Congress and courts have the constitutional responsibility to check the powers of the Executive and I for one will be watching closely that they fulfill that responsibility and I encourage all democratic loving Americans to do the same.
7
We've been blessed with a president who bragged about stiffing small business suppliers, telling the to sue him for their final payment as a fool's goal. He settled fraud with thousands of students without defending himself and called on Russia to interfere with our election even more. News organizations fell right to help Russia fence stolen mail, and they wonder why their reputation is sullied. The NY Times, CNN, WaPo and others could rebuild their reputation when they apologize for helping Russia influence our election, because everyone should ask, would news organizations have fenced stolen information from the Watergate Hotel had Nixon's Plumbers been successful ?
2
It is now becoming clear that the reason for Mr. Trump to become President is that his finances are not as bright as he pretends. He is very afraid of being revealed and the technique he uses is to bully the media like Dictators do. Now he can make deals with the rest of the world and make tons of money using his unique position as President.
3
In America an extremely wealthy person can bankrupt a merely prosperous person in litigation without having a winning case or even getting to trial. That is the nature of the discovery processes and the nearly unlimited right of Americans to sue each other. Speaking as one with substantial legal experience the only standard required to force another person or company to incur huge legal costs without recourse is to make claims that can be made with a straight face - the capacity to say almost anything with a straight face is persuasive in the US legal community. Peter Thiel has given us a glimpse of the power of a huge checkbook to fund litigation. Even if you feel Gawker had it coming, everyone needs to think about the implications of wealthy people steamrolling their enemies.
7
They also have to think of the implications of being steamrolled, defrauded etc and helpless because most people, even the very upper class, cannot afford to fund litigation.
The worst kind of censorship is the self-censorship that results when demagoguery, threats, intimidation, or a spate of costly lawsuits leave the Press and the opposition cowed.
We are at a fateful moment in this nation. I am so depressed.
We are at a fateful moment in this nation. I am so depressed.
10
It seems that the NYTs wants it's version of news reporting to continue. So, they bring up the rantings of a person, Trump, who most reasonable Americans would view as a little unbalance from the start. The world and all Americans are going to be very disappointed in Trump. He demonstrated his lack of statesmanship and unbalance throughout the election. He will likely continue. The general lack of real information based on investigative reporting will continue, but it will be driven, by Trump, to the edges of being unreal. I wrote the NYTs off years ago when the hid their knowledge of government spying on Americans. Before they take the high ground, they might want to report on the continue use of black sites, the growth of the cyber security monolith under Obama, a constant dialogue on why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East, how a college professor, Bernanke, can get a classroom theory implemented into FED policy, and then take credit along with his successor, Yellen, on every little (very little) improvement in the economy. Report the facts if you ever take the time to investigate any.
2
While the rhetoric that Trump and the billionaire class push regarding their deservedly unflattering press is chilling, including Gawker in this report doesn't do you any service. The Hogan tape was not newsworthy, nor should a public reaction by anyone imply that they should not be allowed to later pursue charges if the material released is defaming. And that was not the only sex tape published - Gawker also did things like publish the video of a female college student having sex in a bar restroom, then refused to remove the tape when she contacted them pleading to do so. Editor AJ Daulerio's response to her was "the best advice I can give you right now: do not make a big deal out of this". And it was his own responses and tone in the courtroom that cemented jury opinion against him - making light of the entire idea of privacy, responding with quips when discussing topics like child pornography, essentially doing everything except making a serious effort to explain why the Hogan video was newsworthy rather than defamatory.
The integrity of independent journalism is paramount in this country, but let's not kid ourselves that all media is created equally. There are lines that should not be crossed, and Gawker was found guilty for having done so. Now, the prosecution not with the intent to win, but to drain one's opponent - that is something that we should all find unsettling. I'm waiting with apprehension for Trump to have access to the real levers of power.
The integrity of independent journalism is paramount in this country, but let's not kid ourselves that all media is created equally. There are lines that should not be crossed, and Gawker was found guilty for having done so. Now, the prosecution not with the intent to win, but to drain one's opponent - that is something that we should all find unsettling. I'm waiting with apprehension for Trump to have access to the real levers of power.
4
I am guessing that at least in Trump's case, whatever he spent winning the presidency will be a good investment. He can continue to hide his tax returns, rebuild his wealth, and line the pockets of his children. Dismantling the United States is a sideshow.
Even the mainstream Republican David Frum said, "Follow the money."
Even the mainstream Republican David Frum said, "Follow the money."
15
During this past election cycle, the media was handed a gift - a candidate whose narcissism knew no bounds and was proud to put it on display with video and tweets for all to see. But that was not enough. The media forgot that a picture can say a thousand words and it elected to pile on with its own subjective descriptions. It overestimated its role in lecturing Americans on what was obvious and it grossly underestimated the impact of how many people would respond adversely to being told what to think, as opposed to being presented with facts available for their consideration. The noise ultimately drowned out the picture. Maybe the lesson for the media to learn is that we it should place a higher degree of trust in the capacity of the average American to sort through those conflicting pictures. The fringe will never be converted, but that is not a reason for the media to abandon clear and objective reporting. The media can do a better job of showing us those pictures, and avoid picking a favorite by telling us what we are supposed to see.
3
The media often makes the views of the working people seem like the fringe, and the views of their billionaire shareholders seem mainstream.
1
The watch word for all media from any source is scepticism. While in the past there was greater confidence in the industry history has shown that they too were spinning yarns that favoured the powers that controlled them. The other unchangeable piece of the puzzle is people inevitably look and find news that confirms and reinforces their already preconceived sense of the world.
3
I'm not worried about the corporate media. They are in the business of making profits for shareholders, and the product just happens to be what they decide is "news". We have seen the results of that approach in this recent election, where the "newsmaker" Trump was treated to massive coverage because it helped ratings (i.e. ad sales). These corporate media will find a way to make money under Trump. What I am worried about is the smaller media, especially those with the courage to take on the established norms and "conventional wisdom" while trying to inform us more deeply about issues and policies and events that shape our world. They don't have deep pockets. Moreover, the corporate media don't even care enough to defend them; after all, these smaller media outlets are seen as competitors by the corporate media that control 90% of what most people get as news.
2
Market based news is the front. But it is all filtered through what is good for the billionaires that own the corporate media. That is why there is never a story about how supply side economics has failed over and over for decades.
Did I miss the Rolling Stones v. UVA et al in the parade of horribles in Ms. Bazelon article? I must have blinked.
2
Trump is a bully and bigot. He wants his supporters to follow news from the fake alt-right websites. It's is a little ridiculous how much he is attacking the media and wants to "open up those libel laws". He could do it, but the Times does not publish fake stories like anti-Trump protestors were bused in.
The republican strategy of claiming "liberal bias in the lamestream media" in reporting from Fox News has paid of big league/bigly. It's been said so many times half the country believes it.
The republican strategy of claiming "liberal bias in the lamestream media" in reporting from Fox News has paid of big league/bigly. It's been said so many times half the country believes it.
2
This is what happens to societies when the wealthiest don't have to pay taxes, kill regulatory agencies and/or defund them and BIG business is allowed to buy up their competition and put good companies - and workers - out of business. They amass great wealth and use it to try to destroy the very society that enriched them. That is HIStory.
Now a few supposed "masters of the universe", another name for crooks and robber barons, are trying to suppress free speech. Lawyers have companies and news workers tied up in knots so they don't get sued. It is totally out of hand.
The only answers are to have loud grassroots push back when media we trust are sued by these freedom-destroying vultures, for grassroots class-action lawsuits against those who would take away our right to the truth brought by individuals from all walks of life who want to preserve democracy, and for a small-donor, no-profit, anonymous network of average citizens who will tell the truth of what is happening to the American people through whistle-blowing and being willing to speak out about "private agreements" and contract payoffs that are destructive to democracy.
One thing is true - Americans will fight back against these democracy destroyers.
Now a few supposed "masters of the universe", another name for crooks and robber barons, are trying to suppress free speech. Lawyers have companies and news workers tied up in knots so they don't get sued. It is totally out of hand.
The only answers are to have loud grassroots push back when media we trust are sued by these freedom-destroying vultures, for grassroots class-action lawsuits against those who would take away our right to the truth brought by individuals from all walks of life who want to preserve democracy, and for a small-donor, no-profit, anonymous network of average citizens who will tell the truth of what is happening to the American people through whistle-blowing and being willing to speak out about "private agreements" and contract payoffs that are destructive to democracy.
One thing is true - Americans will fight back against these democracy destroyers.
34
The billionaires bought most of mass media long ago. The chain of command, from board to CEO to publisher to editor to reporter, knows what is acceptable to the billionaire shareholders and what will kill your career.
They know that stories extolling "job creators," and government privatization, exposing government corruption, distracting with celebrities, and scary stories about crime and terrorism are all good. They know that people that protest against tax cuts, deregulation, and privatisation are to bed labeled as kooks, and that you must always interview the kookiest protester. Supply Side Economics must be continually propped up, like Weekend With Bernie, and that helping the poor must always lead to totalitarian dictatorship.
Control of the mass media conversation is control over the norms that govern society.
They know that stories extolling "job creators," and government privatization, exposing government corruption, distracting with celebrities, and scary stories about crime and terrorism are all good. They know that people that protest against tax cuts, deregulation, and privatisation are to bed labeled as kooks, and that you must always interview the kookiest protester. Supply Side Economics must be continually propped up, like Weekend With Bernie, and that helping the poor must always lead to totalitarian dictatorship.
Control of the mass media conversation is control over the norms that govern society.
1
If NYTimes haven't been so unbelievably partisan during the election I might care more but when the press goes out of their way to print rumors, op-ed as facts and outright lies, I don't think they can hide behind "press freedom". Have NYTimes clean house yet? Someone needs to be fired for "only Hillary, not Sanders can defeat Trump", "Trump is Putin's agent", "Hillary have 85% chance of defeating Trump".
You made your bed, now lay on it.
You made your bed, now lay on it.
5
Isn't it fascinating that we're discussing "fake news" sites on the one hand, and first amendment rights on the other?
While DT and the right wing echo chamber constantly trash the legitimacy and integrity of traditionally trustworthy media outlets like PBS and the NYT, there is an explosion of "fake news" sites that are outrageously false, but promote a particular political viewpoint. Am I the only one who sees a deliberate link between these phenomena?
The first step in altering someone's belief system is to destroy their current beliefs. Once that is accomplished, they're a blank slate where just about anything can be written. That's what we're seeing in the US today. The right wing echo chamber has spent the last few decades convincing Americans that their most trusted sources of news are hopelessly biased and untrustworthy. For the most part, this has been successful. I can't tell you how many conservatives I've spoken with who tell me, "I don't know who to listen to any more - I don't know what's true and what's not!"
Enter: DT with a snake oil potion that sells like crazy.
While DT and the right wing echo chamber constantly trash the legitimacy and integrity of traditionally trustworthy media outlets like PBS and the NYT, there is an explosion of "fake news" sites that are outrageously false, but promote a particular political viewpoint. Am I the only one who sees a deliberate link between these phenomena?
The first step in altering someone's belief system is to destroy their current beliefs. Once that is accomplished, they're a blank slate where just about anything can be written. That's what we're seeing in the US today. The right wing echo chamber has spent the last few decades convincing Americans that their most trusted sources of news are hopelessly biased and untrustworthy. For the most part, this has been successful. I can't tell you how many conservatives I've spoken with who tell me, "I don't know who to listen to any more - I don't know what's true and what's not!"
Enter: DT with a snake oil potion that sells like crazy.
2
Thank you for continuing to offer us real news although we have a coming administration that is hostile to it.
6
Isn't it amazing how certain groups cherry pick the Constituion to suit their own interests. For example, why is the Second Amendment so sacrosanct, but the First is so inconvenient?
6
Trump has demanded that all men at his coronation wear black shirts.
1
A majority of American's outside of cities do not believe a word that is printed here.
5
Are there organized efforts to collect and provide financial and pro bono expert legal supports to journalists and newspapers in libel suits?
2
It is the norm now that all the media personality that is anyone these days are married to a politician or to a lobbyist or to a DC insider.
No journalist (or very few of them) have direct access without sleeping with an insider.
No journalist (or very few of them) have direct access without sleeping with an insider.
1
I just subscribed to The Guardian. I'm fairly confident they won't kowtow to Trump. They may be one of the few news organizations that won't.
6
Here's a novel concept: Fact Check.
When I think of Press freedom, I think of the 'Atlanta Olympics Bomber' and the way that poor man was hounded by the Press and had his life ruined almost immediately.
This was way before the internet became prominent, and the problem has only gotten worse now that anybody can do 'journalism' on the internet.
Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession so that when we read our news we know that the author(s) at least know the rules of journalism.
Yes, that would get in the way of commerce and an untrammeled ability to make up 'news' in other words, it ain't gonna happen, but the alternative is what we have today.
When I think of Press freedom, I think of the 'Atlanta Olympics Bomber' and the way that poor man was hounded by the Press and had his life ruined almost immediately.
This was way before the internet became prominent, and the problem has only gotten worse now that anybody can do 'journalism' on the internet.
Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession so that when we read our news we know that the author(s) at least know the rules of journalism.
Yes, that would get in the way of commerce and an untrammeled ability to make up 'news' in other words, it ain't gonna happen, but the alternative is what we have today.
3
I have been critical of the NYT for its reporting on climate change throughout the 90s because it acknowledging the threat far too late, and its sub-par coverage on income inequality. But to say that you are on your own, as a previous writer put it, is as dangerous and mis-guided. Now is the time to stand up for our media in this country - no matter how flawed - and to resist any overreach by the president-elect. Democracies absolutely depend on a free media. Once the media goes, we will see other key institutions and protections crumble like a house of cards.
5
DJT has set in motion his modus operandi for his time in office. He will continue to exclude the press and cry media bias. Any criticism of DJT will be met with a backlash against the media. He will not hold a press conference (unless we have a crisis and is somehow forced into a position of addressing the public). He doesn't need to cater to the media, he was elected without that support. It has already been established that there are too many lazy and gullible voters. DJT will continue to Tweet and the public will believe him. The media needs to go back to investigative reporting and real news. Get rid of all the talking heads and interviews on TV and get back to reporting the new stories from all parts of the country and world.
4
In 2015 I believe Obama didn't hold a press conference in almost a year. So the backlash against a man who hasn't even taken the oath of office is confusing. The Times has been crying the sky is falling and that their 1st Am. Rights have already been violated is ridiculous.
1
I want to start off by writing that I despise Trump and have been an avid reader of the New York Times for over twenty years. That being said, I think legitimate journalists at publications with high standards as opposed to tabloid journalists or fake news purveyors or just bad journalists do themselves a disservice by aligning themselves with publications like Gawker and Rolling Stone (at least in its lost libel suit regarding the UVA rape case). I don't think it's chilling at all that a billionaire whose politics I also detest was motivated to lend money to a lawsuit over a publishing of a secretly filmed sex tape because of his own outing by that publication. It's not like Peter Thiel was found to have bribed a judge. He funded a lawsuit that had merit, that violated privacy for no good public benefit. If publications like the New York Times that speak truth to power and tabloids that alternately gush over and then shame celebrities are one and the same then Pulitzer prizes should be given to pornographic video websites. If a lack of basic journalistic practices like fact-checking are not subject to winning libel suits, then what's to stop every publication from getting into the business of fake news? The truth is that bad journalism hurts good journalists more than billionaires with agendas. There may be unquestioning, medieval mobs out there who are ready to attack any publication that reports the lies and grotesqueries of their chosen leader, but truth prevails.
55
The real problem is that most voting shares in the handful of global media corporations are controlled by billionaires. There is a direct chain of command from board to CEO to publisher to editor to reporter.
It is true that the market for news and entertainment, and the views of individual reporters are allowed to influence the day to day stories. This is a clever smokescreen that is far less clumsy than the top down content in countries like China,
But the chain of command knows what will get them a promotion and what will get them fired. They know that stories about "job creators," government corruption, celebrities, and petty crime are good. And they know that they are supposed to ignore or ridicule people that oppose them. Protesters are studiously ignored (except for the pro corporate Tea Party) until they laughed at. They always interview the craziest person they can find. Politicians that don't follow their program, like Ross Perot, Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders are to be called "crazy" and their policies silly, expensive, and unrealistic. Taking care of poor people is the path to totalitarian dictatorship, but supply side economics, which has failed for decades (except to make billionaires richer) must be continually resurrected.
These lawsuits are a sideshow, meant to punish outliers, and a way for the billionaires to battle each other. Control of the narrative, the big story told over and over, is the real way they keep people distracted and uninformed.
It is true that the market for news and entertainment, and the views of individual reporters are allowed to influence the day to day stories. This is a clever smokescreen that is far less clumsy than the top down content in countries like China,
But the chain of command knows what will get them a promotion and what will get them fired. They know that stories about "job creators," government corruption, celebrities, and petty crime are good. And they know that they are supposed to ignore or ridicule people that oppose them. Protesters are studiously ignored (except for the pro corporate Tea Party) until they laughed at. They always interview the craziest person they can find. Politicians that don't follow their program, like Ross Perot, Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders are to be called "crazy" and their policies silly, expensive, and unrealistic. Taking care of poor people is the path to totalitarian dictatorship, but supply side economics, which has failed for decades (except to make billionaires richer) must be continually resurrected.
These lawsuits are a sideshow, meant to punish outliers, and a way for the billionaires to battle each other. Control of the narrative, the big story told over and over, is the real way they keep people distracted and uninformed.
7
In the early 1900s billionaires owned monopolies called Trusts that controlled the lives of Americans by keeping consumer prices high to the financial benefit of the Billionaires. The problems for American citizens became so great that two American presidents, both Republicans, busted the Trusts. Those Republican presidents were Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. Today the Republican president-elect is throwing in with the billionaires to re-establish "Trusts" for their opinion and financial control of American citizens. The American people need the New York Times to keep America aware of these important issues to prevent the current attempt to re-establish Trusts that were busted a century ago by the then Republican Party.
2
Are you a mind reader or fortune teller? Trump didn't introduce any legislation to establish Trusts. If anything, he'll dismantle some!
2
Corporate mass media is the trust whose job it is to justify all other trusts, and discredit any new Tafts or Roosevelts.
Yes they can, I am suscribing to paper copies of the NYT.
4
As a reader, I am happy to chip in to defend the freedom of the press. Sure, I can gift subscriptions. Would be nice to also make a direct donation to cover legal fees.
3
You write that the Supreme Court set that “actual malice,” translated as “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.” was the standard for proving libel.
With that, I would agree that Trump should be sued by people who were directly libelled during the campaign, especially people of the press who were pointed by Trump with words of hate. The incidents are well documented
With that, I would agree that Trump should be sued by people who were directly libelled during the campaign, especially people of the press who were pointed by Trump with words of hate. The incidents are well documented
3
The other important thing about the Gawker case was that Thiel specifically structured the lawsuit so that Gawker's insurance could not cover damages. He was not looking for money per se, but ensuring that Gawker and Nick Denton went bankrupt. As I understand it, normally the insurance is part of the lawsuit.
2
All we need is 2 far-right Breitbart judges on the Supreme Court and the US will be toast!
You can forget about a free press with the Koch brothers and their ilk running the show!
You can forget about a free press with the Koch brothers and their ilk running the show!
8
That is why all judges must be blocked. Since they blocked Obama's nominees, they should get the same in return.
1
Are Trump's attacks on the media the beginnings of some kind of presidential dictatorship, supported by self-serving Republicans in the Congress and publicly supported by more lies from the White House? The public needs to be more informed and active than ever before. Trump puts us all in a very different kind of situation.
4
I detest Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the old media did this to themselves. I am a religious reader of the NY Times and you never had a bad word to say about Hillary or a nice thing to say about Trump. You lost your image and status as a neutral third party arbiter. Deal with the consequences.
7
As a man who constantly spews lies and misinformation about his perceived opponents, or those who simply report his missteps, You would think Trump would not be stupid enough to loosen libel laws that have operated to protect his free speech for years. Then again....
1
Rather than learning Amendment One, 101, Trump is spending his time attempting to intimidate the press thus silencing his critics.
All good voices, be they news media or middle schoolers need to Shout Out, Alert the Courts and Take to the Streets.
This Country Was Founded On Equal Rights For All and Freedom Of Speech.
WE WILL NOT LET FASCISM TAKE ROOT. WE WILL IMPEACH YOU.
All good voices, be they news media or middle schoolers need to Shout Out, Alert the Courts and Take to the Streets.
This Country Was Founded On Equal Rights For All and Freedom Of Speech.
WE WILL NOT LET FASCISM TAKE ROOT. WE WILL IMPEACH YOU.
6
Yes, we the citizens, our society needs the free press. However, the NYTimes should also recognize that the media in America has significantly undermined its own position by neglecting its primary function to serve as a mouthpiece for free society and by engaging in partizan politics to the degree that turned it into a manipulator of society. It shamelessly advocates positions of some members of our political class against other members of the political class; it liberally obstructs the free expression of the opinion of its users and selectively uses comments to enhance its own position; it engages in shameless manipulations of political opinion in this country. By doing all this, our media makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to defend it. The media and the NYTimes should seriously revise its own approaches to doing its work and its practices. If this revision does not take place, the readers, not the cheerleaders, will have no reason to support the media, including this paper. The media should be the voice of civil society, not just some part of it.
4
I am very concerned that DJT is now controlling his message via Utube.
It seems like a ready-made propaganda tool for him. Let the public beware.
It seems like a ready-made propaganda tool for him. Let the public beware.
2
Maybe we should focus some attention on the power the Bar Associations and legal lobbying we have in this country who fight for and enable law suits with the incentive of large settlements. I find it difficult to defend Gawker or Rolling Stone for their self inflicted damage. When the press chooses to report "news" that belongs in an opinion column they should report it responsibly. But $140 million to Hulk Hogan (and how much did his Counsel get?) is a disgrace. There is a saying about anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. Almost true in our litigious society. And yes, it is easier to sue when you have means or when you have a lawyer willing to take a case on because they smell the big settlement opportunity. But this subject is much bigger than the press. And until the new President tries to legally take on the press we should reserve judgement on "the Era of Trump". Maybe he just wants to bite back a little when reporters report "news" with an agenda.
Can they succeed? What a silly question. They have already. What follows is a mopping up operation. I assume Bannon will command it.
With the "main-stream media" hors de combat, or in chains, first we lose our eyes and ears then our cherished American freedoms one-by-one, taken from us in the dead of night through sleight-of-legislative hand unobserved -- and, therefore, unreported. This while the real winners in the election, alt-right white nationalists and assorted red state cretins -- cheer and jeer. It is their right, after all; one they wish to strip from everyone whom they despise. Trump and his minions will happily accommodate them. What better way to hide their behind-the-scenes financial chicanery.
Indeed, for the gaggle that embraced Trump and Trumpism with open arms what's not to love? If your highest aspiration in life is to live it undisturbed by worrisome facts or inconvenient truths (like Climate Change, or national bankruptcy) what could possibly be better than inhabiting fact-free space? Fake news taken at face value simply because it's less disturbing and more convenient than the real thing. Less disturbing and more convenient because it confirms what you already believe no matter how awful and ridiculous that is.
Exactly where we're headed.
With the "main-stream media" hors de combat, or in chains, first we lose our eyes and ears then our cherished American freedoms one-by-one, taken from us in the dead of night through sleight-of-legislative hand unobserved -- and, therefore, unreported. This while the real winners in the election, alt-right white nationalists and assorted red state cretins -- cheer and jeer. It is their right, after all; one they wish to strip from everyone whom they despise. Trump and his minions will happily accommodate them. What better way to hide their behind-the-scenes financial chicanery.
Indeed, for the gaggle that embraced Trump and Trumpism with open arms what's not to love? If your highest aspiration in life is to live it undisturbed by worrisome facts or inconvenient truths (like Climate Change, or national bankruptcy) what could possibly be better than inhabiting fact-free space? Fake news taken at face value simply because it's less disturbing and more convenient than the real thing. Less disturbing and more convenient because it confirms what you already believe no matter how awful and ridiculous that is.
Exactly where we're headed.
1
The pendulum swings between unfettered lying sensationalizing press and unfettered lying sensationalizing individuals and groups.
Lawyers win. Society--- not so much.
Lawyers win. Society--- not so much.
1
Remember Est. part of the training, being in a big room, the leaders, the rest of the paid attendees and one microphone. You could only speak if you spoke through the microphone. Or in high school the principal could censor the school paper, even when it wrote the truth. or Mordern Turkey. And then we had/ have Bill Crosby, And now Donald Trump.
As a candidate, Trump certainly posed unprecedented challenges to honest journalists. His threats to the First Amendment through the courts currently strike me as less problematic than his use of social media (YouTube, Twitter) to circumvent journalists altogether. The press itself, including the NYTImes, is partly to blame for this; editorials against Trump early in the general election campaign undermined their traditional claim of impartiality. Trump's continual claims of a lying, dishonest press have gained credibility for many readers as lines between journalistic reporting, blogging, and opinion writing have blurred, and the space and time devoted in the media to actual journalism has shrunk. Of all of the threats looming in the next few years, I fear that loss of an independent press--even a flawed press--will undermine our country most. In this regard, Trump has out-maneuvered the competition. Truth lost.
1
They have already succeeded. And NYTimes helped.
1
"The members of this [rich anti-press] club are innovators."
I wouldn't call them that, any more than I'd say that of Eastern District of Texas patent abusers. They are an abusive and criminal Mafia at best—right down to the dubious wealth and protection-money shakedowns.
I wouldn't call them that, any more than I'd say that of Eastern District of Texas patent abusers. They are an abusive and criminal Mafia at best—right down to the dubious wealth and protection-money shakedowns.
1
Very dangerous
The plutocracy wants to run amok unchecked
What's terrible is that the established media already protects and befriends the billionaire class and now things may get worse
Media has overstepped their bounds going average Americans not the rich. Media outlets pick certain individuals to "cover" and then air every piece of dirty laundry about them over the course of their life. I don't think established media understands how that can look like a witch hunt. Media can't decide to out all the details about one persons private life and then decide that they like someone like hrc and will never publish, and in fact suppress, any stories about her personal life that are unfavorable. I'm still perplexed as to why the nyt felt it was newsworthy to publish several articles on Nate parkers settled legal past when he had his first movie being released. If that's the standard for journalism then publish articles on bill clintons legal past every time he is in the public light. Publish articles on the many celebs who have even worse claims against them that the public isn't aware of.
Be consistent so it doesn't feel like you just target or protect certain people. Media companies have become weapons of PR destruction
The plutocracy wants to run amok unchecked
What's terrible is that the established media already protects and befriends the billionaire class and now things may get worse
Media has overstepped their bounds going average Americans not the rich. Media outlets pick certain individuals to "cover" and then air every piece of dirty laundry about them over the course of their life. I don't think established media understands how that can look like a witch hunt. Media can't decide to out all the details about one persons private life and then decide that they like someone like hrc and will never publish, and in fact suppress, any stories about her personal life that are unfavorable. I'm still perplexed as to why the nyt felt it was newsworthy to publish several articles on Nate parkers settled legal past when he had his first movie being released. If that's the standard for journalism then publish articles on bill clintons legal past every time he is in the public light. Publish articles on the many celebs who have even worse claims against them that the public isn't aware of.
Be consistent so it doesn't feel like you just target or protect certain people. Media companies have become weapons of PR destruction
1
Just keep publishing the truth and the rest will take care of itself. There is, I think, a certain chore of self destruction built into Mr. Trump. But make no mistake, je will push the envelope as far as he can, as he did int he election, and we will need you all to make sure we don't fall asleep again.
One philosopher put it something like this: In the possible, all things are possible and all possible failings are also possible. Mr. Trump's basic nature, despite this ugly election result, is ugly and it will fail him in the ned, but not without accountability. Keep it up.
One philosopher put it something like this: In the possible, all things are possible and all possible failings are also possible. Mr. Trump's basic nature, despite this ugly election result, is ugly and it will fail him in the ned, but not without accountability. Keep it up.
3
I must not be watching and reading the same media coverages as you all. Since Trump's election I have been getting "wishy-washy" signals from those printed and audio/visual outlets I observe on a regular basis. I pick up signals that they (the media) are about to pick-up their toys and run away, tails between their legs. And So Soon ! I always thought the media went overboard when challenged by the medal and ribbon guys and shouted and threatened right back. It is time, especially for the print media, to name names, point fingers and stand up for America rather than anything less.......scream and shout - do not let a new tyrant take center stage!
3
When I heard about that meeting between "The Press" and the Donald - in his territory, and, from the leakage as reported by other reporters, amounting to submitting "The Press" to lectures about how awful they were - - - I wondered why - after the shoddy exploitation of reporters as a kind of Trump Rally side show - you guys accepted his "invitation" in the first place. He has not been conducting business - preparing for the Presidency - as usual, so any event he initiates has to be seen as a possible ambush. How about some 'transparency' here for readers?
1
I've been reading the NYT for over 30 years and I've never seen them go after someone as they did Trump. I'm no Trump fan but I do wish him success as POTUS. I mean, thanks to 60 million wayward voters, who I can't understand could believe a word that comes out of Trump's mouth, we're stuck with this guy for at least 4 years, and if he can't serve the entire 4 years for any reason, we're going to get Pence, who's even worse.
3
The recient attempts by the plutocrats of the 1% are having the net effect of strengthening the trust of 99% in the press.
Remember when the 1% used to apply to the worst of the worst criminals and was proudly if perversely displayed by the "Hell's Angels" and other outlaw motorcycle gangs. Now the term is applied to another group of social misfits the uber rich.
I'm sure the motorcycle gangs resent sharing their appellation with a new more reprehensible form of sociopaths.
Remember when the 1% used to apply to the worst of the worst criminals and was proudly if perversely displayed by the "Hell's Angels" and other outlaw motorcycle gangs. Now the term is applied to another group of social misfits the uber rich.
I'm sure the motorcycle gangs resent sharing their appellation with a new more reprehensible form of sociopaths.
Do not yield. He is going to argue that he can only respect the New York Times if you are perfect-- which of course is impossible. He will try to get concessions from you because he fears you. Just keep doing your work in the best way you know. He is trying to isolate you and pick you off just like he did with all the Republican candidates. One of his tactics is to get his crowds to turn around and yell hateful things at the press-- remember that? Remember how some reporters feared for their safety? That was only four weeks ago.
He invited all the media people, except you-- he's making you a special case and then he will single someone else out-- "just get rid of this reporter and all will be fine," until it is not.
Do not yield. Tell every truth and do not hold back. He will try to use your natural tendency for self inspection against you. Funny-- if I had cheated someone out of $25.00 much less 25 million dollars, I would feel terrible. There is no way to strike a bargain here. Do not consider appeasement. Your readers will not abandon you.
He invited all the media people, except you-- he's making you a special case and then he will single someone else out-- "just get rid of this reporter and all will be fine," until it is not.
Do not yield. Tell every truth and do not hold back. He will try to use your natural tendency for self inspection against you. Funny-- if I had cheated someone out of $25.00 much less 25 million dollars, I would feel terrible. There is no way to strike a bargain here. Do not consider appeasement. Your readers will not abandon you.
229
Right is Might.
Amen
It seems that Arthur Sulzberger's letter to readers "apologizing" for the bias in this newspaper's reporting and that it will be brought to an end was nothing more than words.
This newspaper gave very little attention to billionaire money behind the Democratic candidate and behind the current agitation in the streets, Worst of all, this newspaper undermined the single candidate in this election who had clean hands --- Mr. Sanders.
There are appearances that a President Trump we be circumventing the established media outlets to get his message out. This may be a blessing in disguise.
The NY Times has to decide as to whether it wants to go the route of the once-venerable Washington Post to morph into a clarion for the radical progressive left in devotion of shrilling and throwing temper tantrums over the fact that all the dumb people in the country did agree with the superior intellects on the NYT Editorial Board. .... of become an innovator of a new form of reporting that provides near real-time reporting of *facts* along with a balanced editorial that is delivered only in the editorial column
This newspaper gave very little attention to billionaire money behind the Democratic candidate and behind the current agitation in the streets, Worst of all, this newspaper undermined the single candidate in this election who had clean hands --- Mr. Sanders.
There are appearances that a President Trump we be circumventing the established media outlets to get his message out. This may be a blessing in disguise.
The NY Times has to decide as to whether it wants to go the route of the once-venerable Washington Post to morph into a clarion for the radical progressive left in devotion of shrilling and throwing temper tantrums over the fact that all the dumb people in the country did agree with the superior intellects on the NYT Editorial Board. .... of become an innovator of a new form of reporting that provides near real-time reporting of *facts* along with a balanced editorial that is delivered only in the editorial column
1
The article provides much useful information on the Art of War against the media. The long-term result will be a media owned by individuals too rich to be intimidated (think News of the World) who can dictate what we read and, in consequence, think. Those willing to make the effort will have to resort to foreign independent news sources but also with the consequent result that their voice will be unheard amidst the crowd.
1
Twitter is for the birds. Everyone needs to think long and hard about state-run media (i.e. Russia and China) and ask themselves an important question: are you serving the truth, or are you merely putting Trump's trash out?
The press failed to do their jobs and let a fascist demagogue slide on every half-truth and outright lie he spewed since the laughable "birther" myth first materialized 4 or 5 years ago.
Ever since it's been the same. Lies. Lies. And more Lies, with ZERO fact checking or countering with actual FACTS.
Somehow , it just doesn't look like an accident. Or an "oops, we missed that one". It's been planned, implemented and probably paid for.
The 4th estate has become part of the spin machine. What hope do mere consumers… I mean, "citizens" have now?
Ever since it's been the same. Lies. Lies. And more Lies, with ZERO fact checking or countering with actual FACTS.
Somehow , it just doesn't look like an accident. Or an "oops, we missed that one". It's been planned, implemented and probably paid for.
The 4th estate has become part of the spin machine. What hope do mere consumers… I mean, "citizens" have now?
Other western democracies like Britain don't have special rules for the media and their democracies work just fine. One way to fix the problem of nuisance suits is to adopt the British rule of loser pays attorneys fees to the winner. It won't stop the rich but it will stop a lot of harassment.
I am absolutely afriad of gutting the first amendment, but the media brought this on themselves by giving Trump preferential treatment and vilifying Hillary Clinton. I hope the media can redeem themselves by really bearing down and doing some investigative reporting on Trump and his family, which is the reason he wants to shut them down. but I just don't know if the will is there.
Without a free press the USA becomes a banana republic. Covering Trump, NYTimes, you will have to start printing the news that isn't fit to print only because it will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
1
This article sets up the false premise that today's media is "good" -- an independent, objective, valuable public resource. Then it's easy to argue that efforts to hold the media accountable are "bad". Toss in the wealth inequality angle ("the billionaires are doing it!") and the situation is not only bad, but "unfair". The media is for the little people, and nasty billionaires are hurting them.
Get real. The last election cycle put the final nail in the coffin of the myth of an independent, objective, fair, valuable, public interest mainstream media. The NYT, WAPO, Politico, Slate, Vox, etc. proved themselves to be no different than Breitbart or, for that matter, any lobbying organization or issues or candidate PAC. The MSM had a particular objective (elect Hillary) and they shaped purported "news" stories (versus just opinion) to fit the narrative and further the goal. The bias was so strong you could taste it.
Today's MSM does not deserve any special legislative or judicial protections. Or public respect. They are no longer clothed in any public interest.
Get real. The last election cycle put the final nail in the coffin of the myth of an independent, objective, fair, valuable, public interest mainstream media. The NYT, WAPO, Politico, Slate, Vox, etc. proved themselves to be no different than Breitbart or, for that matter, any lobbying organization or issues or candidate PAC. The MSM had a particular objective (elect Hillary) and they shaped purported "news" stories (versus just opinion) to fit the narrative and further the goal. The bias was so strong you could taste it.
Today's MSM does not deserve any special legislative or judicial protections. Or public respect. They are no longer clothed in any public interest.
1
There are plenty of people for whom getting every possible fact wrong or distorting it is far better than accuracy. Consider the sheer amount of sleaze, real and fake, that this election brought out. The media has done itself no favors in the process, fighting a fiction factory with rather lofty, off target assessments which blew up in its collective face rather convincingly. I would expect a series of legally specific targeted lawsuits against news sources to deliver all the legal precedents and case law required to castrate American media. Be thankful you have that First Amendment, because it may well be all you have left.
1
He just cancelled his meeting with "The Times"....he did not call...just posted it on twitter. This joker is a crook and unaccountable. His first order of business will be to grant himself an Executive Pardon for all past and future transgressions and then never be seen in a press conference.
Here is hoping the Federal Courts are as offended as the majority of the US citizens.
Here is hoping the Federal Courts are as offended as the majority of the US citizens.
1
Trump & Company seem to have no respect for the pillars of our democratic republic; they generate reams of lies, and attack those who challenge their distortions. A free and independent press is critically important if we are to have an informed public. Perhaps journalists are perceived as "liberal" because they know more than the average couch potato soaking up staged "reality" shows and faux news. I worry about the future of our nation under a man who seems to have many hallmarks of a repressive, thin-skinned dictator.
2
There is not an assault on freedom of the press. There is an assault on the American people by members of the press and by the corporations who control the press.
The 'press' has failed to report the news without bias. Many times, the 'press' has chosen not to report the news. This past election is proof of the extremism that the 'press' demonstrated to get people to vote for the candidate of the 'press' choosing.
If there is a fault, it belongs to the 'press'.
The 'press' has failed to report the news without bias. Many times, the 'press' has chosen not to report the news. This past election is proof of the extremism that the 'press' demonstrated to get people to vote for the candidate of the 'press' choosing.
If there is a fault, it belongs to the 'press'.
They began this twenty or so years ago, and they're nearly finished with their assault and now you're complaining? We have few media outlets - all owned by a small handful of wingers; they wouldn't know a non-gossip story if it bit them, there is no investigative journalism left. No one out here in America is left to care about the final ruination of a strong press. Pass the popcorn, must be time for Infotainment Tonight.
I'm hoping that mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos will take on the relatively impoverished Trump. If he pledges to provide the Washington Post with the resources to engage an army of investigative reporters, I pledge to join Amazon Prime.
1
This is all well and good. But it is important to know that the lawsuit-as-put-option has been a common business strategy for decades. Just one more thing the press has not covered. The weakness of many media companies—particularly newspapers—as businesses is the real heart of the trouble here.
Please keep doing your job. After this election season, I subscribed to your magazine to support your reporting.
3
We should be so lucky that a billionaire like Trump would unwittingly drain the swamp that is our vested media. NYT, a paper I only 15 years ago thought was on the up and up, has revealed itself to be not a news source, but a driver of change that it's editors and board hope to effect. Naturally, all the change we are supposed to believe in benefits only the smug know-it-all elites in New York and a few other giant cities. I cancelled my long time subscription after the election. So, billionaires? Right.
1
Journalism is dead. Long live stenography.
1
The first casualty of war is the truth. It seems that the first casualty of Trump-President will be independent news gathering and reporting. It's incredible that he puts the NYT and CNN in the same boat, as CNN spent lots of time re-broadcasting Trump's tweets and never really controverting the most mendacious and malevolent of them. I found the NYT by contrast fair and thorough, although I could imagine less of Trump defense from the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Douthat.
Still: if the NYT goes, or becomes a Trump lap-dog, the US will be the loser.
I wish the Times an extremely tough spine in the weeks and months ahead.
When it was written in 1940, Orwell's 1984 was the future. Now the "Great America Again" seeks to take the US back to 1984 as an ideal. It should be the aim of the NYT and all NYT readers to not allow such a situation come about.
Still: if the NYT goes, or becomes a Trump lap-dog, the US will be the loser.
I wish the Times an extremely tough spine in the weeks and months ahead.
When it was written in 1940, Orwell's 1984 was the future. Now the "Great America Again" seeks to take the US back to 1984 as an ideal. It should be the aim of the NYT and all NYT readers to not allow such a situation come about.
4
I read this and see the confluence of several trends. First, the obvious danger of press self-censoring to avoid lawsuits. And this at a time when the decline in paid subscriptions to real journalism has resulted in the need for most publications to cut staff while the need for investigations increases exponentially .
Then comes the direct appeal by the President-elect on Twitter and now YouTube to provide unfiltered - and often untrue - information to his partisans.
And finally, the meeting of his Neo-Nazi followers a little way from the White House and no condemnation yet from Trump.
Without looking to far into the future the possibility of repression is chilling. How long will we continue to underestimate the ability of this man to carry out his plan?
Then comes the direct appeal by the President-elect on Twitter and now YouTube to provide unfiltered - and often untrue - information to his partisans.
And finally, the meeting of his Neo-Nazi followers a little way from the White House and no condemnation yet from Trump.
Without looking to far into the future the possibility of repression is chilling. How long will we continue to underestimate the ability of this man to carry out his plan?
6
If the media caves or defers to trump in any way then this country is really not worth at least my effort, fighting for. All truly is lost.
4
So now its 'the media' vs the 1%? You are actually trying to make yourselves into the good guys here?
The mainstream media has spent the past year viciously castigating any threat to the establishment, the world view and resulting policies the protected elite saw fit to force on its unprotected citizens.
Look in the mirror. The current populist upheaval is in no small part due to your negligence in failing to even question the effects of far reaching policies on average citizens.
Whatever and whoever didn't fit your predetermined narrative was roundly demonized hypocrisy and double standards be damned.
The mainstream media created the world in which they now live. You are not our champions and I have no sympathy for you.
The mainstream media has spent the past year viciously castigating any threat to the establishment, the world view and resulting policies the protected elite saw fit to force on its unprotected citizens.
Look in the mirror. The current populist upheaval is in no small part due to your negligence in failing to even question the effects of far reaching policies on average citizens.
Whatever and whoever didn't fit your predetermined narrative was roundly demonized hypocrisy and double standards be damned.
The mainstream media created the world in which they now live. You are not our champions and I have no sympathy for you.
7
Trump has been compared to Chavez in Venezuela. Chavez also placed great importance on the media. He had weekly Sunday shows, that often lasted for hours, to transmit his views on policy and current events. He had live public announcements on a regular basis which all the media was obligated to air interrupting regular broadcast. He tweeted. He lambasted and cursed "the other side" and created hate where it had not existed. He created new media channels that totally supported his views. When opposition media continually criticized his government, he proceeded to harass journalists, many of whom were pressured into exile, and had the licences to transmit suspended of the most popular TV station and of a host of radio stations. Thugs would trash opposition news offices. The rest of the media got the message and started to apply self censorship. Even that not being enough, eventually his people bought many of the remaining news outlets, and so control their take on news. So even though the country started a great decline he continued to win elections because the public was bombarded and duped with his optimistic view of the state. Chavez was also grossly underestimated at the beginning. Caveat.
3
Another and potentially greater fear is if the President can use organizations like the CIA to attack and shut down free speech and media outlets. Will the courts serve to protect the first amendment or can the Executive make it difficult for them? If so how? Is there any hope? Can this war be waged in favor of good journalism and equally against the right wing fake news or shock radio personalities who seem to say libelous things much more than the left leaning organizations? Can something like Breitbart be justifiably proven to encourage white supremacists? For every billionaire with an agenda to destroy the media there must be one looking to protect it. Not to mention a public willing to contribute money to saving the first amendment as well.
3
Trump is a master manipulator of the press, who has been quoted as saying there is no such thing as bad publicity. He's right. Trump did this, Trump did that, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. We would be better served if you investigated and reported extensively on the people he surrounds himself with. Bannon has been there for years stoking white nationalism, only now is the public learning about him (too late). Mercer has been bank rolling Conway, Bannon, Cruz, and others for years and we know nothing about his and his daughters role or agenda. Flynn has been characterized as dangerous by fellow West Pointers. Focus on the power behind the power and stop giving free press to the con man in chief.
192
@George Thank you for stating clearly what should be obvious & known by the NYT readers. This is a frightening situation and DEMANDS action! Keep your eyes on the men/women behind the curtain!
1
@George - Right on brother, continue on about how the Clinton's were having people killed and playing the pay to play card.
Do you ever actually READ the NYT? They have reported on all of the above and more. And they continue to do so.
As long as media outlets stick to journalistic ethics and the rule of law prevails, there is no way that Trump and et al can restrict the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Surely there are Republicans in Congress, who respect their Constitution, and won't allow Trump do what he wants. He is keen on going after established media, because they are more influential. He does care about how he is perceived, and the renowned media are being consumed all over the world, something that Breitbart and those that support him, don't.
Trump's world of media wants to satisfy the public's lust for constant entertainment. The dominance of technology has enabled them to spread lies and fake news, with naive and unsuspecting users falling to their prey. As Trump is libel-happy, he should encourage Hillary Clinton to file dozens of libel lawsuits against media that support him.
Trump's world of media wants to satisfy the public's lust for constant entertainment. The dominance of technology has enabled them to spread lies and fake news, with naive and unsuspecting users falling to their prey. As Trump is libel-happy, he should encourage Hillary Clinton to file dozens of libel lawsuits against media that support him.
4
Nonsense.
If Trump didn't have the media to kick around, he'd have to invent it. If print content engines didn't have Trump to condemn, they'd already be bankrupt.
It's a true and mutually advantageous symbiosis.
If Trump didn't have the media to kick around, he'd have to invent it. If print content engines didn't have Trump to condemn, they'd already be bankrupt.
It's a true and mutually advantageous symbiosis.
1
I worked for a little while for a trade publication where I was shocked to see how business leaders thought they had no reason to talk with the press unless they could completely control the content.
You the media have to get more nimble, prepared for real battle against this awful person the EC will put into office in January. He does not follow the rules; the media has to adapt and now. Remember that Trump said he would "open up the libel laws" and sue because of negative stories. Not false. Negative. He's produced a YouTube video so he doesn't have to talk with you. He has gone to war with you because revenues are down and you are perceived as weakened. It is not too much to think of burner phones, encrypted electronics, and preparing for the worst. Playing nice with him will not work.
You the media have to get more nimble, prepared for real battle against this awful person the EC will put into office in January. He does not follow the rules; the media has to adapt and now. Remember that Trump said he would "open up the libel laws" and sue because of negative stories. Not false. Negative. He's produced a YouTube video so he doesn't have to talk with you. He has gone to war with you because revenues are down and you are perceived as weakened. It is not too much to think of burner phones, encrypted electronics, and preparing for the worst. Playing nice with him will not work.
21
The safest way? Print direct quotes and videos of him speaking his points of view. Things will only get uglier, so be prepared. However, the truth and actions speak for themselves. If this new president promises many things, then it's the job of this newspaper, and others, to publish the promises and hold him to it.
7
To the NY Times, you are not on your own. A free press is necessary for the survival of democracy. Stifling those voices that expose the truth and hold our leaders accountable are the actions of a dictator. You are doing a public service. Public service often means carrying on in the face of criticism for the public good. I will do my part and buy subscriptions for my entire family for Christmas. You are the voice for minorities. Do not be silenced.
6
You're blowing things out of proportion. Thiel and Trump makes two. And Gawker was mostly brought down by its own incompetence.
The fact is most American media is controlled by leftists who are detached from reality and do not share a sense of morality with the common man. President Trump should seek to either nationalize and force neutrality on at least one media outlet, or push it towards open nationalism.
Failing that, the media should be trusted less and less. A "wild west" of online news reporting, however untrustworthy, would be preferable to the current monopoly.
The fact is most American media is controlled by leftists who are detached from reality and do not share a sense of morality with the common man. President Trump should seek to either nationalize and force neutrality on at least one media outlet, or push it towards open nationalism.
Failing that, the media should be trusted less and less. A "wild west" of online news reporting, however untrustworthy, would be preferable to the current monopoly.
1
I think you meant to say they don't share your sense of morality.
I'm old enough to remember when the people did see the press as reliable. Edward R. Murrow? Walter Cronkite? Huntley-Brinkley? But beginning with cable news and the moves to make them politically motivated, this long slide started.
And people saw the press as not only reliable, but yes, as responsible for representing the people's interest in keeping an eye on those in power. I dont have time or resources myself to go looking into those things. It's been a great blessing in our republic that we have had a functioning watchdog on our behalf.
I recognize and understand the feelings of people who see that as eroding or eroded. But I think a lot of the mistrust is misplaced, and the older and more established media organizations are still dedicated to the basics of journalism.
But the erosion of trust is truly troubling, especially as that erosion is being encouraged by those who dont want to be watched by a watchdog.
And people saw the press as not only reliable, but yes, as responsible for representing the people's interest in keeping an eye on those in power. I dont have time or resources myself to go looking into those things. It's been a great blessing in our republic that we have had a functioning watchdog on our behalf.
I recognize and understand the feelings of people who see that as eroding or eroded. But I think a lot of the mistrust is misplaced, and the older and more established media organizations are still dedicated to the basics of journalism.
But the erosion of trust is truly troubling, especially as that erosion is being encouraged by those who dont want to be watched by a watchdog.
7
I wonder if the writer sees any connection between the events in this article and North Dakota charging Amy Goodman for "riot" once she revealed the human rights abuses taking place at Standing Rock. The article's title led me to believe this article would be about more than one billionaire and more than one press. If a "larger legal war" is in fact emerging it will be worth your covering.
3
I'm actually looking forward to seeing how the media responds. Will it be the same old false equivalency? "Although Trump has banned the media and jailed members of it, President Obama once refused to call on a reporter at a press conference so both sides are equally at fault."
I believe a free press is essential in a democracy. However, I would be lying if I said I didn't think you deserve this. Perhaps it will be the only thing that will shake you from your complacency and arrogance.
I believe a free press is essential in a democracy. However, I would be lying if I said I didn't think you deserve this. Perhaps it will be the only thing that will shake you from your complacency and arrogance.
3
Incoming President Trump is an astute manipulator of public opinion and therefore needs the major media 'on board' to enhance his every move.
The Great Agenda marches on...
The Great Agenda marches on...
3
For a political party that is always promoting tort reform they sure do sue in court a lot. Also I distrust the media, primarily TV media, not because they slammed trump but because they helped him get elected. They gave him a lot of free publicity because it was good for the bottom line but I'm afraid that all of us will suffer for it.
4
Well, it is Trump's fellow billionaires who've owned the U.S. corporate press since the former Gilded Age, with little to no respect for their ownership of the 4th estate since 1980.
Of course they can. Money wins EVERY time. Always has, always will and it does now. The fascists won (hey, we just wanna work) and Dark Money has won. Get over it and perhaps move on. Democracy for all is a joke. And the joke's on us!!!
1
"It would have been a very different narrative, this story about a billionaire trying to destroy the first amendment." Yes, because that was precisely the the extent of it. But, gee, did I paraphrase the billionaires accurately here, NYTimes? Please check because I don't want to be sued by some random billionaire like Thiel orTrump. They probably know I have only something called the Constitution on my side...and in this era of the gilded brass billionaires holed up high in luxury apartments from which they issue directives to the little people...that is, to reporters and media bloggers...well, let's just say we all know the score. And the only score that may ultimately matter, of course, is this little court Trump and Thiel will soon have right in their back pocket to pull out in times like this....let's call it "The Trump Card." A SCOTUS appointment for Scalia and 5-4 votes for anything they want. Unlimited cash and dark money in politics? No problem. So a little obstacle like a free, unharassed free press? No obstacle to deep pockets who can bankrupt anyone with teams of lawyers papering their offices with motions. What does it all mean? As our Nobel laureate Dylan said in a recent offering: "It's not dark yet... but it's getting there..."
6
Thin-skinned Trump and his small group of wealthy Strumpets hits the deck running.
Targeting the press is the first sign of a dictatorship.
A free press is an inalienable right according to our Constitution.
Do I smell in the air a chance for possible impeachment.
To all of you out their in the media - the people have your back.
Do NOT cave on this one.
Targeting the press is the first sign of a dictatorship.
A free press is an inalienable right according to our Constitution.
Do I smell in the air a chance for possible impeachment.
To all of you out their in the media - the people have your back.
Do NOT cave on this one.
6
Unless the press improves from its present decline it does not need billionaires to make it irrelevant.
We need a source of thoughtful information not merely twisted editorializing.
While opinion definitely has its place we still need a source of factual news.
We need a source of thoughtful information not merely twisted editorializing.
While opinion definitely has its place we still need a source of factual news.
The media, like the big banks, needs reform. Thank you.
The president-elect will no doubt continue to ruffle feathers and probably ruin many more lives than he did as a lowly real estate developer. The billionaires are in charge now. They always were, but before they were in the shadows. Now they are unabashedly out front. And who put them there?
The best news organization in the world, the NYTimes, did a bad job covering the primaries and the general election. It promoted Clinton, ignored Sanders, and spent vast column inches on TRUMP, the carnival barker. It's coverage was so clearly biased that it lost credibility. [Fortunately the Science section is still top notch.] Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
The Times followed TRUMP's every move, every Tweet, every crass one-liner. I can imagine their editorial meetings going something like this:
"TRUMP sells papers. He's a headline machine."
"No doubt, and the beauty is that if he wins the nomination, he'll certainly lose to Hillary."
[Laughs all around.]
As a news organization, you failed us. And you wonder why print news is failing?
And then the columnists: Roller, Leonhardt, Krugman, Rosenthal. Not cool man.
The best news organization in the world, the NYTimes, did a bad job covering the primaries and the general election. It promoted Clinton, ignored Sanders, and spent vast column inches on TRUMP, the carnival barker. It's coverage was so clearly biased that it lost credibility. [Fortunately the Science section is still top notch.] Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
The Times followed TRUMP's every move, every Tweet, every crass one-liner. I can imagine their editorial meetings going something like this:
"TRUMP sells papers. He's a headline machine."
"No doubt, and the beauty is that if he wins the nomination, he'll certainly lose to Hillary."
[Laughs all around.]
As a news organization, you failed us. And you wonder why print news is failing?
And then the columnists: Roller, Leonhardt, Krugman, Rosenthal. Not cool man.
2
Any institution, when left to its own devices, will push the boundaries of its existence. This is especially true with the "media" (I know this is an overly broad term). The "media" has abused the First Amendment, as as a result has lost the respect of the populace. There needs to be a loosening of libel laws in this country as a check on unscrupulous publications, "journalists," writers, bloggers, websites, etc.
Reading articles such as the one referenced here brings me hope that the "media" (all media) will face a reckoning and return to heightened level of respectful decency.
Reading articles such as the one referenced here brings me hope that the "media" (all media) will face a reckoning and return to heightened level of respectful decency.
2
"The court wrote that a public figure has to prove that a false and damaging statement about him was published with “actual malice,” translated as “knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.”
President Obama was no doubt harmed when Mr. Trump discredited his Presidency with the baseless assertion he was not born in the U.S. There is no doubt Mr. Trump's actions would meet the "actual malice" threshold. Shouldn't Mr. Trump be held accountable for this?
And if our President was harmed, as a U.S. citizen wasn't I also harmed? Isn't it conceivable (likely, even) that if President Obama's stature/reputation on the world stage was (falsely) diminished then I did not get the full benefit of a fully effective President. And, if this is true, can I join others in a class action lawsuit against Mr. Trump along with other citizens similarly harmed? In fact, aren't there other ways Mr. Trump has also harmed U.S. citizens with false statements, and shouldn't we all consider hitting him in a way he understands...with a lawsuit?
President Obama was no doubt harmed when Mr. Trump discredited his Presidency with the baseless assertion he was not born in the U.S. There is no doubt Mr. Trump's actions would meet the "actual malice" threshold. Shouldn't Mr. Trump be held accountable for this?
And if our President was harmed, as a U.S. citizen wasn't I also harmed? Isn't it conceivable (likely, even) that if President Obama's stature/reputation on the world stage was (falsely) diminished then I did not get the full benefit of a fully effective President. And, if this is true, can I join others in a class action lawsuit against Mr. Trump along with other citizens similarly harmed? In fact, aren't there other ways Mr. Trump has also harmed U.S. citizens with false statements, and shouldn't we all consider hitting him in a way he understands...with a lawsuit?
11
Elsewhere on these pages we read that President-elect Trump has abruptly canceled an open meeting with the New York Times executives and journalists on the false charge that the Times changed the meeting conditions at the last moment. In fact, it was the Trump team that asked to eliminate the on-the-record part of the meeting and The Times declined, so Trump picked up his marbles, stormed out and unleashed a barrage of peurile tweets.
The nasty bullying of the Trump campaign is carrying over into his interregnum. Soon he will have power. Do not count on Congress or the courts to check him. GOP outrage over Trumpian excess subsides when Republicans are no longer in Trump's crosshairs. The American foundations of constitutional democracy? They only count when useful for partisan gain.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The nasty bullying of the Trump campaign is carrying over into his interregnum. Soon he will have power. Do not count on Congress or the courts to check him. GOP outrage over Trumpian excess subsides when Republicans are no longer in Trump's crosshairs. The American foundations of constitutional democracy? They only count when useful for partisan gain.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
8
A media where 95% of the reporters, columnists and management actively supported and promoted one candidate, Hillary, has something seriously worn with it. If anyone doubts the elite liberal dominance and tyranny over our media exists, this should put their doubts to rest. Unfortunately the same situation exists in our Universities. The only way elite liberals could have achieved this situation is by banning everyone with differing opinion form getting a job or firing them after they get it. The liberal thought and speech rules while professing to promote politeness and courtesy actually serve to maintain their control, labeling any difference with their opinion as hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, etc. You cannot talk to a liberal for 1 minute before his knee jerk reaction is to start labeling you, calling you names, and shouting you down like in the universities.
5
Bill T, this is how they try to prove their point. They berate, denigrate and browbeat you into submission to their way of thinking. They love to think that they are always THE smartest people in the room. We know better, we know they are delusional and let them continue their charade. Sad thing is for supposedly such smart people they never see how they bully anyone and everyone who has a differing view. Just read the snarky comments here and on other boards on the Times, and still they scratch their heads and ask how could they have lost this election. Wonder no more.
The problem is that there are only two real newspapers in our country, the NYT and before the Bezos purchase, the WaPo. These two newspapers, especially the WaPo have during the campaign waged a war of exaggeration and distortion, the yellow press, the National Enquirer. In contrast, there is no rational, center, national newspaper whose Editors belong to the Bob Dole, old centrist, event George H. W. Bush realm. Anyway, regardless presentation of what are supposed to be the news, but which are Mad Men or WWII ear deception to advance one point of view on the front pages of the only two newspapers we have is to going to preserve our democracy and fulfill your responsibility as the free press. This article is hysteria. The real problem is that we only have two newspapers. The Fox News is laughable. The AM radio stations are in possession of Fox News like media, making money from distortion. So the NYT and the WaPo are oddly in the position of having to responsible serve the middle, be more like the PBS Newshour, present like Gwen Ifel did, the news, and let our citizens make up their own minds.
1
Bob Dole supported Trump. Enthusiastically. Or didn't you get that memo? And the so-called "moderate" republicans who opposed Trump are now parading down the catwalk, hoping to win his beauty contest.
1
If I speak out against POTUS in a comment that you publish, will I be defended by the NYTimes?
1
Watch how the far Left tries to diminish Fox News and other news outlets that do not parrot the Left wing talking points. Any speaker who does not echo the echo chamber meme about any subject risks silencing. Look at what happens at college campuses, with safe spaces and speech codes. Silencing speech that one does not like is taught on too many college campuses and other schools, by the far Left, that nobody should be surprised if attempts to silence critics is becoming more widespread. But nobody has tried to silence Paul Krugman's hate-filled rants or Charles Blow racist-filled op-eds. The Times' comment monitors engage in a lot more censorship than these billionaires with their law suits.
4
Whether a media organization leans right or left or retains journalists who speak throughout the spectrum, it is our right under the Constitution's First Amendment to hear them all or any we choose. Period.
The legal decision under Sullivan grants the New York Times many rights that never constitute that terrible word. LIBEL.
A press that is free to examine, investigate and explore the TRUTH as they see it is our right and a need for a democracy. That old phrase about people in glass houses comes to mind. Any government that reduces the obligation and the right of a free press and the protocols which respect our press, will eventually oppress its people.
Our press tried with great vigor in many cases to verify the facts which ultimately support the truth of what they provide.
I continue to trust certain press and media and the New York Times is among these most respected sources of journalism.
We are very very fortunate in THIS COUNTRY to have an extremely wide spectrum of news sources from which to choose. I don't know that some sources verify the truth as well as others. I don't trust social media as a source of the truth. Friends and colleagues who repeat information that later I find on SNOPES or other verification sites is not true. I don't fault these people but they are glad when I make them aware of the truth. But by then it has been spread further.
Choose the media you wish to believe but don't restrict my rights to choose from any.
The legal decision under Sullivan grants the New York Times many rights that never constitute that terrible word. LIBEL.
A press that is free to examine, investigate and explore the TRUTH as they see it is our right and a need for a democracy. That old phrase about people in glass houses comes to mind. Any government that reduces the obligation and the right of a free press and the protocols which respect our press, will eventually oppress its people.
Our press tried with great vigor in many cases to verify the facts which ultimately support the truth of what they provide.
I continue to trust certain press and media and the New York Times is among these most respected sources of journalism.
We are very very fortunate in THIS COUNTRY to have an extremely wide spectrum of news sources from which to choose. I don't know that some sources verify the truth as well as others. I don't trust social media as a source of the truth. Friends and colleagues who repeat information that later I find on SNOPES or other verification sites is not true. I don't fault these people but they are glad when I make them aware of the truth. But by then it has been spread further.
Choose the media you wish to believe but don't restrict my rights to choose from any.
4
There are at least two immense problems for the credibility of professional journalism. First is the erosion of their trusted authority by the internet's profusion of "news sources" and bloggers, and secondly by the entrenched right-wing "personalities" who have profitably flooded our vast network of local AM radio stations with endless vitriol and general nastiness.
The public simply doesn't know what to believe any more. For many, the credibility of professional journalism and their upstart corollaries alike has descended to general suspicion and skepticism. The reassuring moral authority of a Cronkite or a Murrow has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Citizen seekers of truth are forced to pick their way through a minefield of propaganda and disinformation to make sense of their world. The new reality of Republican control of the courts does not bode well for a Free Press.
The public simply doesn't know what to believe any more. For many, the credibility of professional journalism and their upstart corollaries alike has descended to general suspicion and skepticism. The reassuring moral authority of a Cronkite or a Murrow has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Citizen seekers of truth are forced to pick their way through a minefield of propaganda and disinformation to make sense of their world. The new reality of Republican control of the courts does not bode well for a Free Press.
8
We are a nation in awe of money and power. Some fear the tail of the dog wags hard enough to knock us down. Others adore the dog, teeth and all. Others recognize the dog. As the Tanzania born Indian hotel manager told me last month in North Carolina, our president elect is on the ride for the power. So my plea the New York Times is keep on doing what you've done here and in New York, write and print the news as it is, not as some sophomoric elitist with an attitude thinks it should be.
4
Press on! I rely on media outlets like the NYT to help preserve our democracy. On Nov. 11, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. & Dean Baquet promised me and all of their subscribers that the NYT would "report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences...." I am counting on all of you to "to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly." And as requested, I expect "the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to (y)our coverage of the new president and his team." I will stand for nothing less that what has been offered and thank you in advance for continuing to defend our constitutional right to freedom of the press.
194
How can you buy the "without fear and favor" when the NYT endorsed HRC since early primaries, favoring her over Sanders and then over Trump? You can't have it both ways if you have a brain, you can't have it "without favor" while endorsing someone and various policies (TPP most recent), firing all your guns for one person and against all the persons who might be better that the person you favor?
November 11 was 18 months too late, Ms. Derderian. The rabid dog is already out of the pen and it should have been destroyed in the first place. The press aided and abetted it's survival at every turn. They do not get a pass.
The media has been creating this "1984" scenario since, like, forever. Is there anything more controlled than Trump's "infomercial" ? Not news, commercial, get it? What's next, a "home shopping" network, government assets/agencies for sale? Stop whining, as my mother would say, and face the bullies! You have brought this disease on yourself by neglecting your professional duties. Reporting takes risk, but the truth is worth more than money, right? Those emails? Fake news, a suit by a hyper partisan organization, admit it. Afraid of Breitbart and the Koch brothers, you say? Weren't you complicit by repeating false accusations( to poor honest Bush, HRC, etc). My mother always told me that when you repeat a lie, you are part of a lie. Same thing for gossip. Listen to my mother. The DNC has been too "high minded" to fight back in kind. Time to face the hyper bullies. Advice from my mother, again. There are super rich Dems and honest moderate Republicans. Ask for help. Ask Bernie, a $27 donation for freedom. Ask us to help. Laws do go both ways. At least for now.
3
This is very very bad. No more need be said.
6
If the NYT gives one inch to the thug trump and his cohorts, it will turn out to be a mile! You are going to have to fight this guy for the next four (or more) years, so get on with it. I wish I had millions to support your efforts to maintain an informed and free press.
10
Bruce from Ksnsas has written a comment that should be turned into an op-ed piece and posted prominently. Cogent, trenchant, a flare fired over the battlements. It's a billionaires world...we just live in it.
I am fully supportive for libel lawsuits. When "fake news" is reported someone has to pay (as the Rolling Stones Magazine reporting the rape that did not happen). Congratulations to President elect Trump with his videos.
1
The Times has published polls and prognosis all year long that Hillary will win with 85-90% chances, when it was proved to be a deliberate lie meant to influence readers and create an aura of losing around Trump. Isn't this proof of actual malice, translated as reckless disregard for the truth?
How many op-eds pro-Trump had been rejected by the Times Opinion Editor although they were truthful? And what is the scale of pro-Trump vs anti-Trump op eds? 0.00001-9,9999% ? Isn't this proof of actual malice, translated as reckless disregard for the truth, when the country was split in half?
How many letters to the Public Editor, addressing all the issues above and many more, more ignored. Isn't this proof of actual malice, translated as reckless disregard for the truth?
Wouldn't be easier for the media to just fire all the editors who didn't play fair and clean up their act, so people can start to trust them again?
How many op-eds pro-Trump had been rejected by the Times Opinion Editor although they were truthful? And what is the scale of pro-Trump vs anti-Trump op eds? 0.00001-9,9999% ? Isn't this proof of actual malice, translated as reckless disregard for the truth, when the country was split in half?
How many letters to the Public Editor, addressing all the issues above and many more, more ignored. Isn't this proof of actual malice, translated as reckless disregard for the truth?
Wouldn't be easier for the media to just fire all the editors who didn't play fair and clean up their act, so people can start to trust them again?
1
"Only 40 percent of the public trusts the media." This is the root of your problem here. Public opinion emboldens the super rich to take on the media. The MSM has used the tabloid press business model where the goal is to sell not to inform. Your lack coverage of Sen. Sanders and your 24/7 Trump coverage (good and bad) eventually turned off people. Then you managed to predict the election wrong. People don't trust you. Why should they? Your reporting and analysis appears no better than some internet troll writing a screed in his basement. You are tarred with the same brush as Gawker. You are no different than Breitbart. Don't expect much sympathy.
1
If Trump lied 30 times in a deposition, you can bet that the Republican-led House of Representatives will impeach him because that's why it impeached Bill Clinton, for lying in his deposition.
Oh poor pitiful NYTimes. The major perpetrator of "Fake News." Or maybe, just controlled by the elite of the elite for continuing war, destruction of our financial treasure, ostensibly to make some nation free after obliterating them.
You lied with Judith Miller. Your pollsters lied by ignorance. And, your non-stop slander of Trump (including this article) means that you are no different than Citizens United Big Money spending all your reputation on wars and on getting Hillary elected, not because she was a criminal, or maybe so, but only because of Social Justice. Meanwhile you gave Obama a free ride for 8 years. He, being the real conman, who has divided our nation, never knew or cared to negotiate, made the middle east worse, and racked up another 10 trillion in debt. And all I got was a T-Shirt for Hillary for Jail. Meanwhile, the real journalists, working from their heart in the alt-media, have exposed the corruption, the sickness, and the lies. You have not.
You lied with Judith Miller. Your pollsters lied by ignorance. And, your non-stop slander of Trump (including this article) means that you are no different than Citizens United Big Money spending all your reputation on wars and on getting Hillary elected, not because she was a criminal, or maybe so, but only because of Social Justice. Meanwhile you gave Obama a free ride for 8 years. He, being the real conman, who has divided our nation, never knew or cared to negotiate, made the middle east worse, and racked up another 10 trillion in debt. And all I got was a T-Shirt for Hillary for Jail. Meanwhile, the real journalists, working from their heart in the alt-media, have exposed the corruption, the sickness, and the lies. You have not.
1
Once newspapers moved from unbiased journalism to advocacy and point of view reporting, they lost their privileged position in American courts and in the mindset of potential jurors.
Write untrue articles and expect to lose libel judgements. No more free passes because you claim to be truth tellers. You aren't and nobody believes that anymore.
Write untrue articles and expect to lose libel judgements. No more free passes because you claim to be truth tellers. You aren't and nobody believes that anymore.
1
If the New York Times had early on recognized the threat to our Republic and its 1st Amendment rights posed by Trump perhaps he wouldn't have narrowly won the electoral college. The question is whether the New York Times has learned a lesson and will it prove a bulwark for freedom against the assault on it from Trump and his followers.
2
It is depressing to read the number of comments from people who believe that the Times is an invalid news source because it did not support their candidate. Have we become so spoiled by bloggers who cater to our personal biases that we are unable tolerate the slightest deviation? All news sources have a bias. I choose the Times over the Wall Street Journal—that doesn't make the Journal a bad newspaper. You don't expect The Nation to praise hedge fund managers and you will never see a critical word about Audra McDonald in the Times. Read critically. Sift for bias. Move out of your comfort zone. Distinguish between a news source that employs fact checkers and takes its mission to inform seriously and hacks whose only goal is to inflame emotions and get clicks. If you don't, you are helping Trump and his brethren succeed in silencing the press.
371
Yes.....In other words use your BRAIN. By the end of Trumps first term he won't need another. We'll all be calling him Emperor for life.
I agree with you Mariah, but in the WSJ I see an attempt at normalcy and balance, that lacks from the current NYT editorial team who has NEVER said one good thing about any of Trump's policies or about his supporters and his movement; by doing so they lost their own credibility, which was their biggest asset!
Thank you. I learned how to read newspapers and harvest facts in high school. Indeed, the only way to get facts is by reading a newspaper that offers worldwide coverage. People who complain about the Times "bias" aren't actually reading the paper. It's jam-packed with facts.
At some point, people who criticize newspapers for failing to deliver unbiased facts are going to have to take the blame for not wanting facts, for getting "news" from discredible sources, and for applying their own biases in lieu of facts.
At some point, people who criticize newspapers for failing to deliver unbiased facts are going to have to take the blame for not wanting facts, for getting "news" from discredible sources, and for applying their own biases in lieu of facts.
I have to agree though, the Times is a main example of less and less honest reporting, and more and more activism.
1
Honest reporting and activism are not mutually exclusive
1
Considering the rabid tone of many Trump-related pieces in the NYT, it does seem the Trump has every reason to be wary of spending time with its reporters. There is nothing that should force anyone to agree to a hostile interview.
I really cannot see how the NYT has any reason to complain when it's own behavior causes distrust from the president elect.
I really cannot see how the NYT has any reason to complain when it's own behavior causes distrust from the president elect.
1
It would be great if he criticized all media equally, but obviously, he is not. This is a witch hunt. Send money to the ACLU.
7
Please keep up the thorough reporting. Knowledge is the only thing we common People have against the likes of Trump, all the glitter, racism, sexism, and xenophobia. We get it- why "liberal" has become such a threatening and bad word to people like Trump and outlets like Breitbart, The Drudge Report and New York Post- because liberals like to read, study and analyze. We get it- we aren't afraid of being called liberals anymore and we're teaching our kids how to be good readers and critical thinkers. In his Honors social studies class, my 6th grade son has assignments now for which they have to read articles on current events, document sources, and give opinions. I've taken my three kids to the library to show all the papers from around the world. We need newspapers like the New York Times more than ever. Please keep up the good work and let us readers know how we can encourage a Free Press.
15
Still holding my head in astonishment that this man has conned the richest, most powerful nation on earth and is now heading for the White House . . . Our democracy is in peril.
15
As the old saying goes, having money makes people funny. Funny weird, not funny ha-ha. It appears being filthy stinking rich makes people absolutely insane, not just funny.
Maybe some people just have too much money for their or anyone else's own good..
Maybe some people just have too much money for their or anyone else's own good..
2
New York Times, I applaud your investigative reporting. Keep it up, your readers find hope in knowing that you are large enough and strong enough to find and publish the facts behind the lies of the President Elect. You strengthen and support us by keeping up the fight. I especially applaud your investigation of his business practices -- one day I hope you turn over some rock and discover that his ties to Russia are financial.
5
"A small group of superrich Americans — the president-elect among them"
For the longest time we were made to believe that Trump was a financial phony. What are we to believe reading this newspaper.
For the longest time we were made to believe that Trump was a financial phony. What are we to believe reading this newspaper.
Also at fault and in collusion with the NYTimes are countless Commenters who continue to be hostile, prejudiced, unbalanced, hysterical and vitriolic against Trump. The people's electoral vote spoke, so please rest your politics for a while and now give Trump a chance.
1
Trump ran a campaign that was hostile, prejudiced, unbalanced, hysterical and vitriolic -- we who could see past his celebrity and his strongman assurances have no intention of now resting our politics. You feel free to give him a chance -- you already have. But the rest of us -- and, we trust, media outlets of integrity -- have no intention of letting him pursue his white-collar criminality, predation, and racist demagoguery without scrutiny or challenge.
1
The vast majority of billionaires supported Mrs. Clinton.
1
Trump built media pens, and into the pens our media poured. What a shame.
1
Wow, Ron T's comment is sublime. One could add President Obama helped destroy his legacy by picking the liar over the authentic.
About the media: You all are now getting it wrong with Trump, as there's clearly an un-objective anti-Trump, establishment, fixed-prism. One gets the sense there are lots of kid-age, condescending staff at the NYT's who make coverage of Trump as a tussle with buffoonery. More wisdom and care is needed here, or this is going to get dangerously out-of-hand. Cut out the prism, please.
More adult behavior is needed on the planet. Seriously.
About the media: You all are now getting it wrong with Trump, as there's clearly an un-objective anti-Trump, establishment, fixed-prism. One gets the sense there are lots of kid-age, condescending staff at the NYT's who make coverage of Trump as a tussle with buffoonery. More wisdom and care is needed here, or this is going to get dangerously out-of-hand. Cut out the prism, please.
More adult behavior is needed on the planet. Seriously.
1
So what is the Times trying to say? Is the newspaper of record for the Democratic Party establishment, the one which, for years prior to the nomination, used it's size and influence to support Hillary, perhaps the only potential candidate who could lose to Donald Trump, whining about how it might become expensive to report unfavorably on President Trump or any of his crowd?
3
Too funny!
Leftists communist open border media media is viewed by republicans and democrats as completely biased against trump from the start. Every poll confirms Americans view the disgraceful reporting of elite media to be destructive of freedom and democracy and have completely disregarded every elite media endorsement and opinion.
Leftists communist open border media media is viewed by republicans and democrats as completely biased against trump from the start. Every poll confirms Americans view the disgraceful reporting of elite media to be destructive of freedom and democracy and have completely disregarded every elite media endorsement and opinion.
2
What an about-turn on billionaires influence! Rub salt in the wound.
I never thought I would have seen such a threat to the Free Press in my lifetime. This is exactly how Totalitarianism begins. Please..Please hold the course.
9
Lately I've been urging people to please subscribe to a newspaper -- online or print -- if they' don't already. For the press to be free, we've got to pay for it. Freedom isn't free.
Another concept we must promote is that the media is not here to reflect you, it's here to cause you to reflect.
Another concept we must promote is that the media is not here to reflect you, it's here to cause you to reflect.
9
All the more reason for the media to uphold journalistic standards like keeping opinion off the news pages or calling pundits and political mouthpieces "anchors" on cable news. If the media were more scrupulous, Trump and his ilk would have trouble demonizing them. As it is, the media are failing American society brazenly, without explanation or regret.
1
I have ambivalent feelings about the news media. I recognize that they are under-resourced and struggling to find a path to survive. The influence of fake news in many forms is scary. The smug attitude that reporters are "afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted" seems pretty lame in the face of how news outlets failed to adequately challenge the growing trend in politics to lie and distort.
We desperately need a platform to challenge what has become a multi-pronged attack on information. As the news media embarked on a quest for survival that seduced them into becoming more entertaining, edgy, able to "grab eyeballs" and a 24/7 news cycle dedicated to superficial reporting, it seems that they have contributed to hastening their own demise.
These legal cases also represent evidence that great wealth is a weapon to be used against enemies in our justice system. As the power of wealth merges with the power of the state, democracy is threatened. It has happened before even here in the United States. It may be that rising inequality will be the force that bends the trajectory of liberty and justice for all back to a feudal system where oligarchs are constrained only by their own consciences.
We desperately need a platform to challenge what has become a multi-pronged attack on information. As the news media embarked on a quest for survival that seduced them into becoming more entertaining, edgy, able to "grab eyeballs" and a 24/7 news cycle dedicated to superficial reporting, it seems that they have contributed to hastening their own demise.
These legal cases also represent evidence that great wealth is a weapon to be used against enemies in our justice system. As the power of wealth merges with the power of the state, democracy is threatened. It has happened before even here in the United States. It may be that rising inequality will be the force that bends the trajectory of liberty and justice for all back to a feudal system where oligarchs are constrained only by their own consciences.
88
Well said Betsy S! I appreciate your thoughts on this article and I wholeheartedly agree with you about wealth and power. Sadly, history shows us that this course always ends the same way.
I have always wondered if most people don't really want to be serfs. Their lord might be tyrannical and behead people for no reason or any reason, but he keeps them safe from the invaders--real and imagined--outside the gates.
The real question is who is supposed to hold US media accountable when they cross the line?
Mainstream media is no longer aiming to be neutral and give forum to a diversity of opinions. Instead, it is always pushing a specific agenda, forcing everyone to conform or else they are shamed and their reputation destroyed.
Our media is either ignoring or viciously attacking opposing views and interests of American people. WikiLeaks proved its dirty back deals.
In the last couple of years, the New York Times blatantly and shamelessly abandoned its journalistic neutrality. They’ve become the PR machine of various globalist special interests: pushed for the Muslim invasion of Europe against the overwhelming comments of its own readers, which, then, were still free and un-tampered with. In the presidential race NYT suppressed any and all voices who preferred either Trump or Sanders, purging free speech from all their op-eds - no pro Trump voices had been ever allowed, which lead to the final surprise - to their lying polls, the Upshots fake prognostics in both the R primaries and in the final race, and finally purging dissent even from their own readers’ comments, manipulated to support their agenda.
So yes, an unprecedented legal assault against the media, after an unprecedented abdication of medias integrity
Read more here:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-repo...
Mainstream media is no longer aiming to be neutral and give forum to a diversity of opinions. Instead, it is always pushing a specific agenda, forcing everyone to conform or else they are shamed and their reputation destroyed.
Our media is either ignoring or viciously attacking opposing views and interests of American people. WikiLeaks proved its dirty back deals.
In the last couple of years, the New York Times blatantly and shamelessly abandoned its journalistic neutrality. They’ve become the PR machine of various globalist special interests: pushed for the Muslim invasion of Europe against the overwhelming comments of its own readers, which, then, were still free and un-tampered with. In the presidential race NYT suppressed any and all voices who preferred either Trump or Sanders, purging free speech from all their op-eds - no pro Trump voices had been ever allowed, which lead to the final surprise - to their lying polls, the Upshots fake prognostics in both the R primaries and in the final race, and finally purging dissent even from their own readers’ comments, manipulated to support their agenda.
So yes, an unprecedented legal assault against the media, after an unprecedented abdication of medias integrity
Read more here:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-repo...
2
Wonder if this is just the beginning of the suppression of opposition in this country. After assaulting a free press will the Trump organization go after celebrities who voice an opinion? Will Tweeters be targeted if they complain?
Trump has a lot to hide. Not revealing his taxes was the start of what will prove to be one of the most corrupt political machines this country has experienced.
Trump has a lot to hide. Not revealing his taxes was the start of what will prove to be one of the most corrupt political machines this country has experienced.
13
Trump has played the media for the last year, and received free advertising with little pushback on his outrageous plans. His lies were not called out. I doubt he has any plans for press conferences, since he is simple minded and cannot process complex ideas in real time. The media is partly responsible for getting him as far as he is in this process by false equivalence of Mrs. Clinton's' emails to the myriad of scams that Mr. Trump has inflicted on countless people.
I subscribe to the Times and Washington Post because I believe that they are still our best chance of informing the public. I encourage others to as well rather than pull their support in protest.
The question is, how will the media report on a government that wants no accountability and is willing to undermine laws that are supposed to protect the public from con men like Donald Trump and the republicans that suppress votes and would rather shut the government down that try to compromise and find solutions to problems? Good luck to all of us. We are going to need it.
I subscribe to the Times and Washington Post because I believe that they are still our best chance of informing the public. I encourage others to as well rather than pull their support in protest.
The question is, how will the media report on a government that wants no accountability and is willing to undermine laws that are supposed to protect the public from con men like Donald Trump and the republicans that suppress votes and would rather shut the government down that try to compromise and find solutions to problems? Good luck to all of us. We are going to need it.
4
Rather than expose himself to press conferences and public debate, Trump has opted to call journalists and media leaders into his private chambers, require them to sign the equivalent of non-disclosure agreements in return for being graced with his presence, and then harshly chastised them like misbehaving underlings for reporting news critical of him. This is not just bullying, it's threatening, and from a President elect, in a country that has always protected freedom of the press, it's a violation of the people's most important safeguard against exactly the sort of authoritarian, populist, demagogic threat that Trump embodies.
I was most encouraged that the NYT was unwilling to meet with him only "off the record" (if I have that right). His aim is to publicly humiliate powerful opponents as part of a broader authoritarian agenda that I for one think involves building a third party within the White House with a fundamentally neo-fascist flavor. We should at least honor history by looking sharp for further indications that that might be the case.
I was most encouraged that the NYT was unwilling to meet with him only "off the record" (if I have that right). His aim is to publicly humiliate powerful opponents as part of a broader authoritarian agenda that I for one think involves building a third party within the White House with a fundamentally neo-fascist flavor. We should at least honor history by looking sharp for further indications that that might be the case.
15
This is an interesting review of facts that rarely surface, let alone penetrate the public's consciousness. It suggests rather than shows the rhetorical dimension of this problem, which permeates our individual lives: the conversion of connotative meanings into denotative facts. The forces behind Trump put words in your mouth as they seize control over the conversation, not the resolution of the topic. They respond to journalists by holding onto the microphone for as long as possible, running out the clock which divides commercial breaks with drivel about a completely different subject and without addressing the questions. That's why they are so adamant about controlling the sacred meaning of "white supremacist," for example; an effort to establish the definition under law until they can control the law itself.
From across the nation, Trump Tower seems already to be establishing its empire on the slaughter of elephants, then the price of ivory. There is so little imagination left in the press.
From across the nation, Trump Tower seems already to be establishing its empire on the slaughter of elephants, then the price of ivory. There is so little imagination left in the press.
2
Democracy is a responsibility, not a right. Because it is a responsibility, the people should not accept any one version of 'news' or opinion. People need to be informed and hear contrasting opinions from a variety of sources. The Trump administration will not use traditional resources to get its message out. They will use twitter, Facebook and alt-right media to spin their version of facts. A demonstration of this new reality is that the President Elect has not held a press conference since the election and does not appear to change this irregularity.
Trump's followers are content to not listen to any source that is not in lock step with their ideology. Trump and other oligarchs are trying to further weaken the media that they cannot control. The result of these two forces is going to be State run media, i.e., an American version of Pravda. Independent journalism will become rare, if available at all.
People have cognitive dissonance concerning facts that don't fit their internal narrative. The reasons are varied but come down to that they are unhappy and the media they listen to tells them that they are not responsible for their unhappiness, the other guy is. Why read the Times concerning global warning when Fox news tells them its a hoax and its Obama's fault.
Its this perfect storm, unhappy/lazy electorate and an administration use of new media that allows them to go directly to their base that will imperil our country.
Trump's followers are content to not listen to any source that is not in lock step with their ideology. Trump and other oligarchs are trying to further weaken the media that they cannot control. The result of these two forces is going to be State run media, i.e., an American version of Pravda. Independent journalism will become rare, if available at all.
People have cognitive dissonance concerning facts that don't fit their internal narrative. The reasons are varied but come down to that they are unhappy and the media they listen to tells them that they are not responsible for their unhappiness, the other guy is. Why read the Times concerning global warning when Fox news tells them its a hoax and its Obama's fault.
Its this perfect storm, unhappy/lazy electorate and an administration use of new media that allows them to go directly to their base that will imperil our country.
7
The "Freedom of Speech" was used by actors of a play to respectfully call on the Vice President Elect to govern a country which recognizes all Americans. Trump's Tweet gave the impression Mr Pence had to endure a verbal assault from a cast member. Absolutely falsehood. President Obama admonished supporters at a rally when a single Trump supporter started to come under fire, showing in 2 minutes what Presidential behavior should be. Trump again absolutely lied at a rally claiming the President had continuously yelled at the single Trump supporter. With gagged journalism how does the public stay informed. Mr Trump can no longer hide behind a Private Corporation, he is now property of the United States taxpayer. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information Acts are there for those who vote and whose tax dollars pay politicians can stay informed as to how their employees are doing their jobs
6
Of humanity's most significant inventions to date are the printing press, radio and television, and the internet. They have served as a means of communicating thought, information, propaganda and debate. Rarely have they served as a vehicle of pure fact, let alone of truth. The truth is always relative, both to the writer and the reader.
In the case of the written press, particularly in politics, it is virtually impossible to report events as they happen without some undercurrent of opinion. Certain high-profile english-language newspapers, such as the NYT, WP and London Times have built a reputation of responsibility over many years, to their credit. Doubtless each of these publications have certain political leanings, these are clearly expressed in their opinion pages, sometimes on the front pages, too. This creates influence, how could it not?
It's no surprise that billionaires are highly motivated to avoid bad press, allergic to questions being asked of their integrity and even more energetic in their pursuit of the press' benediction. Often times, it will be a personal war, driven by ego more than by the search for truth. Today, it is about control, and that is utterly wrong.
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct to a civilised society. The newspapers must be allowed, if not encouraged, to pursue the facts relentlessly, particularly when the governance of democracy is at stake.
The papers report, the readers decide. Complaints are an abdication of responsibility.
In the case of the written press, particularly in politics, it is virtually impossible to report events as they happen without some undercurrent of opinion. Certain high-profile english-language newspapers, such as the NYT, WP and London Times have built a reputation of responsibility over many years, to their credit. Doubtless each of these publications have certain political leanings, these are clearly expressed in their opinion pages, sometimes on the front pages, too. This creates influence, how could it not?
It's no surprise that billionaires are highly motivated to avoid bad press, allergic to questions being asked of their integrity and even more energetic in their pursuit of the press' benediction. Often times, it will be a personal war, driven by ego more than by the search for truth. Today, it is about control, and that is utterly wrong.
Freedom of speech is sacrosanct to a civilised society. The newspapers must be allowed, if not encouraged, to pursue the facts relentlessly, particularly when the governance of democracy is at stake.
The papers report, the readers decide. Complaints are an abdication of responsibility.
6
When the media become an extension of the DNC and will do virtually anything in their power to destroy any office seeking conservative that poses the slightest threat to a liberal office holder, they lose all credibility.
The lengths the media went to exonerate Hillary Clinton were extraordinary. Clinton sold out the State Dept, took hundreds of millions in Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments (and NO, please, no one believes they were done out of pure kindness) hammered cell phones and beached tens of thousands of emails, etc. Yet the "media" downplayed all this as much as they could and blamed it all on a conservative witch hunt.
It's laughable to criticize Trump's treatment of the media when the media themselves would present their news coverage plans to the Clinton Campaign for approval before printing or airing.
Votes for Trump were also votes against the MSM that painted every Trump voter as a racist idiot.
Any public support for a conservative candidate for any office is met with media vitriol.
Instead of accepting a Trump win, we now get articles about destroying the Electoral College, as though poor little Hillary had no idea no idea how it worked. She lost "blue" states and their electoral votes due to her arrogance of taking them for granted. For a woman with a thousand handlers, that's breath-taking.
I do enjoy the NYT cooking section. The usual NYT smears of conservatives are not injected into every recipe, at least not yet.
The lengths the media went to exonerate Hillary Clinton were extraordinary. Clinton sold out the State Dept, took hundreds of millions in Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments (and NO, please, no one believes they were done out of pure kindness) hammered cell phones and beached tens of thousands of emails, etc. Yet the "media" downplayed all this as much as they could and blamed it all on a conservative witch hunt.
It's laughable to criticize Trump's treatment of the media when the media themselves would present their news coverage plans to the Clinton Campaign for approval before printing or airing.
Votes for Trump were also votes against the MSM that painted every Trump voter as a racist idiot.
Any public support for a conservative candidate for any office is met with media vitriol.
Instead of accepting a Trump win, we now get articles about destroying the Electoral College, as though poor little Hillary had no idea no idea how it worked. She lost "blue" states and their electoral votes due to her arrogance of taking them for granted. For a woman with a thousand handlers, that's breath-taking.
I do enjoy the NYT cooking section. The usual NYT smears of conservatives are not injected into every recipe, at least not yet.
2
Donald Trump is all about control and image. That's one fact/problem we have to face.
The media in general terms is a mess. That's a separate issue. We all, including media, need to except the very serious problems that exist with multiple media outlets today.
Back in the late 80s I went from a very brief career as a news reporter and became a teacher. One of the reasons I left reporting, was the song and dance I saw over and over again. Too many reporters want to either a) sound like a know it all/expert or b) wow everybody with writing skills. That's not news reporting. Good reporting means clear writing. It is a very important service and needs to be done with integrity. It's not a show it's a public service.
I see a lot of parallels with teaching. Good teachers are relentless. They teach. There's no glory in it, and it's exhausting. However, it is worth it. The teachers don't try to act like they have the answer. There is no silver bullet to the problems in education. But good work happens in schools every day and it results in learning.
So it is bad teaching which merely entertains kids. Good reporting should result in an informed citizenship. Not an entertained one. It's all getting depressing.
The media in general terms is a mess. That's a separate issue. We all, including media, need to except the very serious problems that exist with multiple media outlets today.
Back in the late 80s I went from a very brief career as a news reporter and became a teacher. One of the reasons I left reporting, was the song and dance I saw over and over again. Too many reporters want to either a) sound like a know it all/expert or b) wow everybody with writing skills. That's not news reporting. Good reporting means clear writing. It is a very important service and needs to be done with integrity. It's not a show it's a public service.
I see a lot of parallels with teaching. Good teachers are relentless. They teach. There's no glory in it, and it's exhausting. However, it is worth it. The teachers don't try to act like they have the answer. There is no silver bullet to the problems in education. But good work happens in schools every day and it results in learning.
So it is bad teaching which merely entertains kids. Good reporting should result in an informed citizenship. Not an entertained one. It's all getting depressing.
2
The real problem is that most (voting)'shares in the giant global conglomerates that own the handful of global media corporations are owned by billionaires.. There is a chain of command from board to CEO to publisher to editor to reporter.
It is true that the market, and the ambitions and goals of individuals on the front line are allowed to influence the day to day reporting. The corporations do want to make money, and it all seems more believable when all content does not come down from above, the way it does in clumsy systems like China.
But the billionaires have an agenda, and the chain of command is aware of what will get them promotions and what will get them fired. They know that stories about "job creators," big IPOs, small crimes, and government corruption are good. They also know that they are supposed to ignore or ridicule ideas and people that may show
It is true that the market, and the ambitions and goals of individuals on the front line are allowed to influence the day to day reporting. The corporations do want to make money, and it all seems more believable when all content does not come down from above, the way it does in clumsy systems like China.
But the billionaires have an agenda, and the chain of command is aware of what will get them promotions and what will get them fired. They know that stories about "job creators," big IPOs, small crimes, and government corruption are good. They also know that they are supposed to ignore or ridicule ideas and people that may show
The First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I've noticed that way too many Americans like to skip right over this one, but scream about the second amendment constantly. I guess word of mouth paired with selective listening is easier than reading and thinking.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I've noticed that way too many Americans like to skip right over this one, but scream about the second amendment constantly. I guess word of mouth paired with selective listening is easier than reading and thinking.
6
"only half of Trump backers agreed that it was important in a strong democracy that news organizations are free to criticize political leaders." It amazes me that the security our democracy has afforded citizens has led to complacency and even a willingness to give up certain freedoms. After 9-11 we saw people willing to give up their right to privacy, etc. just to feel safe. At that point I felt that the terrorist had won. Now we have citizens who don't get why a free press is so important to upholding our freedoms.
While I think the media needs to get out of the entertainment and sensationalizing business and return to its roots, it nevertheless should remain free. As for Trump and other wealthy people to use libel suits as a weapon, perhaps legal fees and fines should be levied against those who lose or who have cases dismissed. Then throwing money at others to seek revenge will be spiting oneself.
While I think the media needs to get out of the entertainment and sensationalizing business and return to its roots, it nevertheless should remain free. As for Trump and other wealthy people to use libel suits as a weapon, perhaps legal fees and fines should be levied against those who lose or who have cases dismissed. Then throwing money at others to seek revenge will be spiting oneself.
2
The real risk would seem to be the weaponization of the courts by those with the money and the indecency to attack the media for exposing the truth relevant to the public.
The argument that the media has been weaponized resonates as well as a basic balance of relevance is often ignored in some press channels. In the Hogan case, the admission of his behavior should not license exposure, instead creating irrelevance to the tape as additional evidence was not justified; it did not refute or clarify.
The solution is clear: laws that define libel in a way that both protects individuals and enables the press. With Congress now creating law through an increasingly politicized Supreme Court, the process will be long, arduous, and costly limiting access to those with Money to burn and axes to grind.
The argument that the media has been weaponized resonates as well as a basic balance of relevance is often ignored in some press channels. In the Hogan case, the admission of his behavior should not license exposure, instead creating irrelevance to the tape as additional evidence was not justified; it did not refute or clarify.
The solution is clear: laws that define libel in a way that both protects individuals and enables the press. With Congress now creating law through an increasingly politicized Supreme Court, the process will be long, arduous, and costly limiting access to those with Money to burn and axes to grind.
1
I see a direct relationship between the recent success of lawsuits against media organizations and the survey finding that "only 40 percent of the public — the lowest rate since at least the 1990s — trusts the media 'to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.'”
The assumption that members of the press are immune from corruption of the fifth estate's essential mission (and some would say, duty) to act primarily as a clear mirror and honest critic is clearly naive and false in the age of Fox News and Rolling Stone.
News organizations (often senior ones) sometimes "create" the news or unfairly harm people and organizations purely for fame and profit, or stray too far into rigid ideological or political stances that insult readers' intelligence. A general trend towards sensational tabloid-ism makes things worse: like lewd behavior, it may increase interest temporarily, but it inevitably diminishes self respect and audience respect.
The current feeling of "weakness" among the news media is largely the result of its own misbehavior--with Fox News leading the downward spiral. The feeling could largely be dispelled by a general and visible re-commitment to integrity in reporting and opinionating, including a forceful repudiation of those who abuse the freedom and good name of the press for low ends.
The assumption that members of the press are immune from corruption of the fifth estate's essential mission (and some would say, duty) to act primarily as a clear mirror and honest critic is clearly naive and false in the age of Fox News and Rolling Stone.
News organizations (often senior ones) sometimes "create" the news or unfairly harm people and organizations purely for fame and profit, or stray too far into rigid ideological or political stances that insult readers' intelligence. A general trend towards sensational tabloid-ism makes things worse: like lewd behavior, it may increase interest temporarily, but it inevitably diminishes self respect and audience respect.
The current feeling of "weakness" among the news media is largely the result of its own misbehavior--with Fox News leading the downward spiral. The feeling could largely be dispelled by a general and visible re-commitment to integrity in reporting and opinionating, including a forceful repudiation of those who abuse the freedom and good name of the press for low ends.
1
This is by far the most frightening aspect of the new Trump regime to me. The first undertaking of a demagogue is to take control of the narrative by undermining, discrediting, suppressing and finally replacing the press. (As well as public "intellectuals" - knowledgeable people in general are of course the greatest threat.)
Journalists know this very well. We need to firmly stand by the NYT and every other venerable news source that's reporting the truth and providing tough, principled coverage of this exceedingly worrisome and possibly very dangerous new administration.
Trump and his supporters have been launching an alarmingly successful assault upon the truth, or even concern for the truth. Best they heed the first amendment, which tells us that the government does not have the right to try to control or block certain things from being published in the press. Trump has already violated that caution in spirit and threatened to do so by legal fiat. Online, his misguided champions indicate that they'd love to see the traditional journalism come tumbling down, to be replaced by "their own media", which has proven to be little more than a vast, fact-challenged internet rumor mill that functions mostly as agit prop.
The machinations described here should alert, enrage and energize us all.
Journalists know this very well. We need to firmly stand by the NYT and every other venerable news source that's reporting the truth and providing tough, principled coverage of this exceedingly worrisome and possibly very dangerous new administration.
Trump and his supporters have been launching an alarmingly successful assault upon the truth, or even concern for the truth. Best they heed the first amendment, which tells us that the government does not have the right to try to control or block certain things from being published in the press. Trump has already violated that caution in spirit and threatened to do so by legal fiat. Online, his misguided champions indicate that they'd love to see the traditional journalism come tumbling down, to be replaced by "their own media", which has proven to be little more than a vast, fact-challenged internet rumor mill that functions mostly as agit prop.
The machinations described here should alert, enrage and energize us all.
10
If Donald Trump were a wise person, he could use the American press as a political opposition, rather than as a political enemy. For if something goes wrong with his people or his policies, the Press is the only channel to publicize what is going wrong with his government or the failure of his actions. In a country like the United States, (today), where a political party has won control of the House and Senate, the government can do whatever they want, including changes in laws to favor the president or his accolades.
Under these circumstances, only a free press can maintain the government acting to benefit the society and not the few who are exercising political power.
Under these circumstances, only a free press can maintain the government acting to benefit the society and not the few who are exercising political power.
2
His strategy employed against O'Brien was used against we as well. Basically the plaintiff used the strategy of trying to out lawyer me (i.e. force me into financial ruin by running up legal bills - a strategy this person stupidly outlined in n email to me) as a way to force me to settle to the terms this person desired.
The shortfall in the system is that this person did not have to pay my legal fees when they lost all 4 cases. Perhaps it is time to change the laws to prevent this financial bullying.
The shortfall in the system is that this person did not have to pay my legal fees when they lost all 4 cases. Perhaps it is time to change the laws to prevent this financial bullying.
2
Mr. Trump's battles with the press is just another example of his magnificent obsession, being a winner or at least being seen as one. He can tolerate nothing less. That's as important to him as is air.
Most people somewhat hide their "demons," Mr. Trump wears his on his sleeve. That's why he attacks as losers those who criticize him. He's calling them what he's terrified of being. And that's why he throws his weight and lawsuits around. It's all about intimidation and trying to control what's reported about him. It's all about protecting his fragile ego.
And this issue is deep seated. It probably took root at the knee of his father Fred who claimed that in life there are only two kinds of people winners (he called killers) and losers. Losers are worthless. His older brother Freddie was considered a loser and died of alcoholism.
Unfortunately, these are the kinds of issues that can only be resolved through therapy. But because Mr. Trump can't admit to ever being wrong or making a mistake (being a loser) he will never take personal responsibility for his behavior thus he will never seek help. Therefore, he will remain stuck believing his only recourse for slights and criticism is these ongoing battles with the media or anyone else who challenges his perfection.
This is what Omarosa predicted should DT become president: "Every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump. It's the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the world."
Most people somewhat hide their "demons," Mr. Trump wears his on his sleeve. That's why he attacks as losers those who criticize him. He's calling them what he's terrified of being. And that's why he throws his weight and lawsuits around. It's all about intimidation and trying to control what's reported about him. It's all about protecting his fragile ego.
And this issue is deep seated. It probably took root at the knee of his father Fred who claimed that in life there are only two kinds of people winners (he called killers) and losers. Losers are worthless. His older brother Freddie was considered a loser and died of alcoholism.
Unfortunately, these are the kinds of issues that can only be resolved through therapy. But because Mr. Trump can't admit to ever being wrong or making a mistake (being a loser) he will never take personal responsibility for his behavior thus he will never seek help. Therefore, he will remain stuck believing his only recourse for slights and criticism is these ongoing battles with the media or anyone else who challenges his perfection.
This is what Omarosa predicted should DT become president: "Every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump. It's the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the world."
6
I have not been more frightened and ashamed for our Press and Wonderful journalists. Bullying not allowed in elementary school. There will come a time , and believe me with this rhetoric and his scoldings... there will be an upheaval amongst our so many brilliant , hardworking Muir's , Blitzers,'' Holts ';, etc, etc...even Megyn Kelly must be appalled From her end . I pray President -elect " Trump" will come to his senses an stop playing his gold and diamond "Trump" card.Try to be the President not the dictator oi these already great United States oAmerica.
Who exactly do these geniuses who malign the press think is going to tell them the truth if we don't have a free press? These same people say you can't trust politicians and the government, so where do they think they are going to get the truth? Wee gee boards? Psychic friends network? Astrologers?
The billionaires who want to destroy the press want to do it for one reason: so no one will report on their wrongdoing, their sexual assaults, their theft of government resources, their corruption and their overseas bank accounts. They are looking for one thing, and one thing only, the ability to loot the economy with no one looking over their shoulders, just like Trump's best friend Putin has done in Russia.
Billionaires wanting to hide their corruption is one thing, but the tens of millions of Americans who hate the press are another. We have raised tens of millions of seriously dysfunctional people in this country who are completely irrational and ignorant and who fail to see the value of a free press. It is alarming and disgusting. The GOP has brainwashed them all into hating the press, and they are all too ignorant to see how wrong they are.
When we no longer have a free press, we no longer have a free country.
The billionaires who want to destroy the press want to do it for one reason: so no one will report on their wrongdoing, their sexual assaults, their theft of government resources, their corruption and their overseas bank accounts. They are looking for one thing, and one thing only, the ability to loot the economy with no one looking over their shoulders, just like Trump's best friend Putin has done in Russia.
Billionaires wanting to hide their corruption is one thing, but the tens of millions of Americans who hate the press are another. We have raised tens of millions of seriously dysfunctional people in this country who are completely irrational and ignorant and who fail to see the value of a free press. It is alarming and disgusting. The GOP has brainwashed them all into hating the press, and they are all too ignorant to see how wrong they are.
When we no longer have a free press, we no longer have a free country.
1
The importance of a free and tenacious press is more important than ever, as we slide into the bombastic surreality of a Trump administration.
I find it deeply troubling that the wealthy use our legal system as a cudgel against the fourth estate. In a nation with a free and open press, the media has a right to report on prominent individuals- billionaires or not.
A strengthening of First Amendment protections should be met with a damages cap similar to what exists in the UK. This would protect our press while reducing the financial damage wealthy litigants can do to our media.
The public distrust of the media is twofold. First, it is a result of the media's behavior during the Bush administration- an almost total abrogation of duty in pursuit of "access". I sincerely hope the media has learned its lessons from those years. They will need it. The second, is a propagandistic attack on truth in the media by the right wing. Our discourse has been so flooded with falsehoods, charlatans, crackpot sources, and bum stories that the public dismisses a great deal. Hopefully, the President's push to clean up fake news sources will help.
Trump exists in a bubble of constantly shifting assertions, beliefs, and statements, and has been surrounded by sycophants his entire life. The majority of the American people did not vote for him, and we expect the press to hold him to the high standards of the office he will soon inhabit. We will need a fearless media now more than ever.
I find it deeply troubling that the wealthy use our legal system as a cudgel against the fourth estate. In a nation with a free and open press, the media has a right to report on prominent individuals- billionaires or not.
A strengthening of First Amendment protections should be met with a damages cap similar to what exists in the UK. This would protect our press while reducing the financial damage wealthy litigants can do to our media.
The public distrust of the media is twofold. First, it is a result of the media's behavior during the Bush administration- an almost total abrogation of duty in pursuit of "access". I sincerely hope the media has learned its lessons from those years. They will need it. The second, is a propagandistic attack on truth in the media by the right wing. Our discourse has been so flooded with falsehoods, charlatans, crackpot sources, and bum stories that the public dismisses a great deal. Hopefully, the President's push to clean up fake news sources will help.
Trump exists in a bubble of constantly shifting assertions, beliefs, and statements, and has been surrounded by sycophants his entire life. The majority of the American people did not vote for him, and we expect the press to hold him to the high standards of the office he will soon inhabit. We will need a fearless media now more than ever.
2
I see both side of this argument. While it is vital for the public to know the news around the world, support investigative journalism to uncover wrongdoing in our public servants, and other influential people who have a say on how the world works; I draw the line at sensationalism, scandal reporting on those famous people of the arts or those like Princess Diana who died as a result of paparazzi chasing her car through the streets of Paris to get a shot of her.
Then a person like Donald Trump comes along who is trying desperately to shut down reporters who have found out that he is not the person he thinks he is or would have you think he is. This type of person has now become the president elect (God forbid) and that is thanks to the media in part for their sloppy reporting of his massive lies and his business ties to foreign governments, his pay to play foundation, his double dipping that will continue while he is POTUS unless someone watches his every move and shines a light on it. Must be done, needs to be done. We the public implore you the media to quit normalizing Trump and his scary transition team; this pretender will overturn everything and before you know it first amendment rights will be history, then we might just as well live in Russia!
Then a person like Donald Trump comes along who is trying desperately to shut down reporters who have found out that he is not the person he thinks he is or would have you think he is. This type of person has now become the president elect (God forbid) and that is thanks to the media in part for their sloppy reporting of his massive lies and his business ties to foreign governments, his pay to play foundation, his double dipping that will continue while he is POTUS unless someone watches his every move and shines a light on it. Must be done, needs to be done. We the public implore you the media to quit normalizing Trump and his scary transition team; this pretender will overturn everything and before you know it first amendment rights will be history, then we might just as well live in Russia!
1
This article highlights what scares me about this new administration more than anything else - how, as citizens, do we fight to make sure the truth is available through free press?
6
Given the smear campaign that the media,,particularly the NYT and Washington Post, have waged against Trump, we can only hope that he will be successful in scaling back libel laws. Nothing would please me more than for a few of your writers to lose lawsuits.
2
I'm baffled by the virulence against the NYT expressed in some of these comments. This paper tried to do an almost impossible job, as the lies were coming too fast and thick for fact-checking to work before the next swarm of them appeared. There's an intresting story here, about how the NYT tried to cope: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-death-of-he-said...
As far as I'm concerned, the NYT remains the world's best newspaper, and if I were limited to only one website, this would be it! Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
As far as I'm concerned, the NYT remains the world's best newspaper, and if I were limited to only one website, this would be it! Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
15
Please New York Times and all other fair and sensible news outlets - stay strong! We cannot survive without you and I am afraid I am not being the least bit over-the-top. Speaking truth to power has never been so crucial. No one, in small or large ways, should cow to Trump. he is not a King-elect, he is a President-elect and we are part of a historic democracy, something he will need to be reminded of again and again.
10
Trump's efforts to intimidate the press may be the most chilling thing that he has done yet. Are the Russians behind this, too? I'd prefer to think so, but I'm afraid we are our own worst enemy.
9
There are ways beyond lawsuits to stifle the press. The strategy of the right has been to marginalize the media by calling them biased liars who are tools of the liberal left. They have been very successful in persuading their followers to only believe media outlets that confirm their own bias. Now, when newspapers and media outlets that employ actual journalists, challenge or call out Republicans or Trump, they dismiss them as the elitist lying press who is unfair and on a smear campaign. That is one way to eliminate a check on your power. Now on to eliminate the next check….
8
I totally agree with Kris, and the other replier who begged you, the New York Times. to hang on. I have been so distraught about the attack on the "regular" press, and then this phenomenon online of False News sources. It is a brilliant attack on a free society that is already pretty messed up from an information perspective. Right now I have friends who have given me an online version of the New York Times, but I am going to buy a regular daily paper subscription. We can't just write in and tell you to hang on - we have to give you financial support. Thanks again, New York Times.
1
NYTimes told you everyone should abandon Sanders and back Hillary because only Hillary can beat Trump. They even show a slider that shows Hillary at 85% chance of being president the afternoon of Election Day. Who is more biased? You can believe whatever you want but don't be surprised if the result doesn't confirm your opinion.
1
No, they never said that everyone should abandon Sanders for Hillary, period! I by the way voted for Sanders and read the New York Times, imagine that! The polls that they published were not NYT polls but an average of multiple polls, the same polls that other's used as well, including the Trump campaign who were just as surprised by his win as everybody else. This is what the polling averages showed, but this was an unusual election and there simply was no historical precedence for it. The fact that almost all of the polls were wrong, does not make liars out of the media who simply reported on their results. If you actually think that, then you either don’t know much about polling or you are dead set on believing that everything that you read from the so called main street media is false in which case you are a Republican success story!
Since being fired in 1990 after a decade as editor of the Chicago Tribune for opposing and being "irreverent" to the new publisher who later led the company (now known as (Tronc) to ruin and bankruptcy, I have never once regretted not being part of the press--until now. Anyone in this country, particularly the leaders of cable news and social media moguls, who do not recognize the building of a totalitarian regime, better read a little history. War has been declared on democracy and the First Amendment by a demagogue whose ignorance about public policy has successfully masked both his guile and dangerous intent. Wake up, people. You think ISIS is our greatest threat? No, it is always us.
678
jim - So you noticed how the NPI confab in D.C. this past weekend featured rants about ' the lying press ' (in the original German) dovetailing so neatly with the prez-elect calling in the media moguls and anchors on Monday to call them all ' liars ':
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-t...
One wonders if Les Moonves, CBS head, has yet been disabused of his opinion from the spring primaries, when he proclaimed:
" It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/les-moonves-donald-trump_us_56d52ce8...
Maybe Lenin wasn't so far off when he wrote of useful idiots " The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them ".
Too bad Establishment GOP'ers aren't canvassing GOP'er electors getting them to switch enough votes by Dec. 19 to be sure the bullying bloviator never has a chance to take the Oath of Office - he can do a lot of damage before an impeachment process can remove him from office; if he'd even go.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-t...
One wonders if Les Moonves, CBS head, has yet been disabused of his opinion from the spring primaries, when he proclaimed:
" It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/les-moonves-donald-trump_us_56d52ce8...
Maybe Lenin wasn't so far off when he wrote of useful idiots " The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them ".
Too bad Establishment GOP'ers aren't canvassing GOP'er electors getting them to switch enough votes by Dec. 19 to be sure the bullying bloviator never has a chance to take the Oath of Office - he can do a lot of damage before an impeachment process can remove him from office; if he'd even go.
1
Thank you for this comment. I'm just a local yokel nobody, but when my mother-in-law (who grew up outside of Munich during WWII) tells me "this is how it started", well, I'm inclined to believe her.
2
So true. Our home grown terrorists have done MUCH more damage than outside forces. We only have to look within to see our greatest vulnerability and enemies.
2
If the media is not there to inform us, who will ? As individuals we little people that do no show up on the national political map can not afford to do battle with the forces of wealth and power and privilege. Are we entering an era of money vs. the first amendment and the right to know what goes on behind closed doors of the uber wealthy and Washington power structure ?
Remember Watergate & The Pentagon papers. We need an open and free media via the first amendment more than we need the second amendment.
Remember Watergate & The Pentagon papers. We need an open and free media via the first amendment more than we need the second amendment.
3
Yes, Trump tries to intimidate people, some in the media, by using the courts. We knew this about him. The rest of the story is conjecture - not news. You can guess all you like what will happen next, but that is more akin to fortune telling. Can we please have more news and current events - and less guessing?
3
I tend to agree with the article... Trump has shown repeatedly that he is willing to tell bold face lies about things he has done, or said, often in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.
It works for Putin because there really is no press in his country to really dispute what he says... Or if they do... Well there are "consequences".
It could work for trump too if he could find a way to kill the press here. He can't do that quite as literally as Putin can, be he can wage war against it via the courts and his own ongoing social media
Blitz against it.
It's one of the most frightening things about him and this election... We all love to hate the press and the steady stream of bad news and yes even biased news, but we NEED someone out there digging for facts and exposing the truth for those who are interested.
I don't know how you deal with the bias... I love the NYT but even I can see the bias.. But maybe we are stuck with bias and just need to read a balanced diet of news
It works for Putin because there really is no press in his country to really dispute what he says... Or if they do... Well there are "consequences".
It could work for trump too if he could find a way to kill the press here. He can't do that quite as literally as Putin can, be he can wage war against it via the courts and his own ongoing social media
Blitz against it.
It's one of the most frightening things about him and this election... We all love to hate the press and the steady stream of bad news and yes even biased news, but we NEED someone out there digging for facts and exposing the truth for those who are interested.
I don't know how you deal with the bias... I love the NYT but even I can see the bias.. But maybe we are stuck with bias and just need to read a balanced diet of news
2
When the the press is suppressed, the seeds of dictatorship are sown. The media helped create Donald J Trump and is now reaping the "benefits" of that creation. Let us hope that our institutions are strong enough to prevent the corruption of power. Remember Nixon tried to abuse office of the presidency and he failed.
2
Stop calling him "the Donald" and humanizing him.
He is a disgrace to humanity.
And, of course they can succeed in killing freedom of the press. See all historical precedent.
The writing was on the wall long before now, as the media printed his ever word and stupid tweet, and as the media destroyed all hope of electing the most qualified person ever to the office of President. Hillary. Rodham. Clinton.
He is a disgrace to humanity.
And, of course they can succeed in killing freedom of the press. See all historical precedent.
The writing was on the wall long before now, as the media printed his ever word and stupid tweet, and as the media destroyed all hope of electing the most qualified person ever to the office of President. Hillary. Rodham. Clinton.
4
Going after the free flow of information and a free press is how democracy dies.
Check the numerous examples forged by the despots in Turkey,Russia, China.
Allow some freedom and prosperity, draw in the reins of free speech.
Soon we will have free choice, believe our triumphal leader or our lying eyes.
Check the numerous examples forged by the despots in Turkey,Russia, China.
Allow some freedom and prosperity, draw in the reins of free speech.
Soon we will have free choice, believe our triumphal leader or our lying eyes.
1
A lawsuit is supposed to be about justice and law. Because of it's obscene and unjustifiable cost it often becomes just another weapon for the wealthy to achieve their ends, make money, get their way, or to get revenge. It has nothing to do with justice and makes mockery of the term due process. We need a Bernie Sanders-like look at what too big to fail plaintiffs and their lawyers are doing to our country, the intent of our laws, our people, and our economy... but who can afford to do it!!
2
In this supposed land of free expression, where even the right cries about its lack of freedom, we're already not even among the top nations in press freedoms, so it is frightening to think that our first amendment rights would be even further eroded. For these guys, freedom and liberty and patriotism are one-way streets. You could cut the hypocrisy with a knife. This is perhaps the most important area where we all need to be extremely vigilant, and to fight this new administration at every turn. If the right can be allowed to spend 8 years characterizing Obama as a creature from another planet, then the left certainly must be allowed to spend the next 4 or (god help us) 8 years vigorously calling out, in a much more legitimate way, any erosions of very basic press freedoms and other personal liberties.
1
It is beyond belief that in this "free" country the press is under siege. Never has a newly elected president "summoned" the main tv hosts and channels to intimidate them with his soon to be almighty powers. Where are we, two weeks after an election? Will we all be silenced the way the Nazis silenced their opposition by sending their SA troopers, aka confederate flag wavers and Nazi congregations after whoever expresses an opposite view? Dire times ahead, we have to fight this evil, do not be intimidated by this gang, we are under full assault now
3
Ron T in his previous comment amuses with his canned "fight between the elites". Not good enough, Ron. While certain prurient media (the Gawker case for example, and I would also include in this category The New York Post) often demonstrate at best poor taste and at worst a libelous disregard for the truth, The New York Times is hardly in that category, despite the way it put the lid on Bernie Sanders initially. Journalism, in case you thought it was like just scratching your opinion here or using Facebook, Ron T., is hard. It requires work. And freedom of the press is foundational to our Democracy, or whatever is left of it. It does not surprise me that a demagogue like Trump is going after the media: every dictator goes after a free press first. I do agree, however, that The Times needs to look beyond Trump in its re-examination of what went wrong: self-criticism is required, and this article doesn't seem like a step in that direction.
1
All forms of written communication longer than 147 characters will be banned. They are part of the elitist establishment. Who has such an attention span anyway? (Clicking now on the environment-friendly looking, pro-pesticide banner ad baiting me next to this comment field)
2
Crying about how we got here...
It is not where we are but where we are going that counts.
We are the Trump nation now. Buckle up!
It is not where we are but where we are going that counts.
We are the Trump nation now. Buckle up!
1
The best journalists will be like Dan Rather...not spin the news...just get
the news....and in the case of Donald Trump find out his connections to
Russian financiers and press the case for revealing his tax returns so that
we are not inaugurating a traitor....in January 2017...
The New York Times is being excoriated by Trump...because their journalists
are doing their job....telling the Truth....and are stop spinning the news.
Continue....and Godspeed !!!
the news....and in the case of Donald Trump find out his connections to
Russian financiers and press the case for revealing his tax returns so that
we are not inaugurating a traitor....in January 2017...
The New York Times is being excoriated by Trump...because their journalists
are doing their job....telling the Truth....and are stop spinning the news.
Continue....and Godspeed !!!
6
This is a big deal. I believe the press needs to examine why it is held in such low regard by the people, and address those concerns. Freedom of speech and protection from specious lawsuits are both huge issues that will no doubt be tested during the Trump regime. Rich people who don't like criticism have huge resources to make life difficult for the free press. One thought that I have is that the media sets itself up for legitimate criticism when it tries to make news rather than report it. The assumption of ill intent, or incompetence, on the part of our political leaders colors many of the articles I read. That does not endear the media to readers unless they are hard core partisans. A free press is essential to an effective democracy. Lets hope the media leaders figure out a strategy for surviving Trump with their integrity in tact.
3
The national press?
A small group of superrich Americans vs. a smaller group of overeducated graduates of elite colleges who have very little in common with ordinary Americans...
Neither group understands the poor and the powerless, neither group really showed an interest in the lives and deaths of homeless and sick people. All through the election we heard of Trump's crap, since it was loud and brutal, but the press did what it could to ignore the real plight lower income America and Bernie.
To me, the press is either CNN or the NYTimes. The first showed itself to be perfectly happy to wallow in Trumpism and help get him elected from all the publicity, and the second is wonderful, but really not on the radar of most Americans. I find myself more and more watching France24 or Sky TV on the web, which tend to be objective and honest.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
A small group of superrich Americans vs. a smaller group of overeducated graduates of elite colleges who have very little in common with ordinary Americans...
Neither group understands the poor and the powerless, neither group really showed an interest in the lives and deaths of homeless and sick people. All through the election we heard of Trump's crap, since it was loud and brutal, but the press did what it could to ignore the real plight lower income America and Bernie.
To me, the press is either CNN or the NYTimes. The first showed itself to be perfectly happy to wallow in Trumpism and help get him elected from all the publicity, and the second is wonderful, but really not on the radar of most Americans. I find myself more and more watching France24 or Sky TV on the web, which tend to be objective and honest.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
3
Can they succeed? Only if you let them.
1
Thank you for this article. All this deeply worries me. With all branches of the government soon to be in Republican hands, freedom of the press might be the only thing left that can save us.
256
....so it's likely the first thing to go. The opening salvos have already been fired.
Except this story has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
Sorry, but I see it gone on inauguration day. America will enter a period of full DICTATORSHIP, and the last bastion of hope could be the Supreme Court, and there is no gleam of hope there either. The MEDIA PRESIDENT was elected and now they (MEDIA) need to figure out how the damage can start being reined in, then controlled and then we could call cautious success. Great lesson for MEDIA here: People and the Constitution do matter more than their ratings. By the time NYT, WaPo, and others less tabloid quality woke up to what was happening and how they got bamboozled, it was too late, all Trump had to do wast twist and turn the knife jab for major damage and pain. He even gloated about it and his "walking dead" followers laughed out loud. It deeply hurt a great many of us.
Start counting the days that the First Amendment has left under the rule of Mr. Trump.
4
Assaults on freedom of the press is the first step to dictatorship.
New York Times, we depend on you and all journalists to do a good an thorough job. Do not let this bully change this newspaper.
New York Times, we depend on you and all journalists to do a good an thorough job. Do not let this bully change this newspaper.
22
Last week I went online and made contributions to the ACLU, The Climate Scientists Legal Defense Fund, Southern Poverty Leadership Center, and I already make contributions to Planned Parenthood. There obviously needs to be a defense fund for reporters.
Surprised that there is a climate scientist defense fund? Lamar Smith, Rep. from Texas is head of the House Science Committee and he has been subpoenaing them and going to court to get their emails, as he seems to be convinced they are doctoring the data. This is harassment. We need to push back, speak up, and people are going to need legal defense.
Surprised that there is a climate scientist defense fund? Lamar Smith, Rep. from Texas is head of the House Science Committee and he has been subpoenaing them and going to court to get their emails, as he seems to be convinced they are doctoring the data. This is harassment. We need to push back, speak up, and people are going to need legal defense.
29
Dear Editors and the Editorial Board of The NY Times, we would have much more 'sympathy' for your freedom of the press and impartiality concerns if you lead by example. Whilst I am a subscriber to your publication and an ardent reader you almost lost me many times over the Bernie Sanders campaign reporting fiasco. Long before The Editorial Board publicly declared support for Hillary Clinton on behalf of the newspaper the Times was already filtering and biasing both the volume and content of Sanders vs. Clinton coverage. There was an outcry from your reader base, myself included, that you ignored. We didn't want Bernie promoted and pushed, we just wanted fair coverage. You rewarded our loyalty to your publication with thinly disguised Clinton propaganda. Yes, we all voted for Hillary but not because you told us to. It was because the other option was ridiculous and unfathomable. You misread the public, your subscribers and ultimately the candidates appeal. Please take some times to understand that there is a price to pay for deliberately biased and subjective newspaper reporting, other than childish lawsuits, and your alienation and the distrust of a 'yuge' section of your readership is that price.
7
Washington Post, Jeff Bezos; Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch; Bloomberg, Bloomberg. Murdoch's News Corp owns Fox and much other media. These billionaires are "the media." All three are wealthier than Trump.
The NYT needs different editors that ensure complete reporting. For example, on 3 different occasions, Jan 21, July 5, and Oct 31, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a man who had been endorsed in 2003 as a potential Supreme Court Justice by NY *Democratic* Senator (and now Senate Minority Leader) Schumer, state that Clinton had committed felonies by her use of a private email server in her home when she was Secretary of State. He mentioned her denials, and the destruction of emails as well. This is the title of the Oct 31 WSJ Mukasey commentary: "The FBI Director’s Unworthy Choice
Comey acceded to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton."
The NYT and other newspapers should respect Mukasey and Schumer's endorsement of him and push for a full investigation using an independent prosecutor and a grand jury.
Instead of emphasizing that it was Trump (and Sanders) but not Clinton who were vociferously objecting to Carrier moving a plant from Indiana to Mexico thanks to NAFTA, they were silent and criticized Trump. Clinton was not reported to objecting in the media or in her own twitter feed. Moreover, Trump protested Disney of Florida replacing American IT workers with H1-B visa foreigners but again Clinton was silent.
The NYT needs different editors that ensure complete reporting. For example, on 3 different occasions, Jan 21, July 5, and Oct 31, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a man who had been endorsed in 2003 as a potential Supreme Court Justice by NY *Democratic* Senator (and now Senate Minority Leader) Schumer, state that Clinton had committed felonies by her use of a private email server in her home when she was Secretary of State. He mentioned her denials, and the destruction of emails as well. This is the title of the Oct 31 WSJ Mukasey commentary: "The FBI Director’s Unworthy Choice
Comey acceded to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton."
The NYT and other newspapers should respect Mukasey and Schumer's endorsement of him and push for a full investigation using an independent prosecutor and a grand jury.
Instead of emphasizing that it was Trump (and Sanders) but not Clinton who were vociferously objecting to Carrier moving a plant from Indiana to Mexico thanks to NAFTA, they were silent and criticized Trump. Clinton was not reported to objecting in the media or in her own twitter feed. Moreover, Trump protested Disney of Florida replacing American IT workers with H1-B visa foreigners but again Clinton was silent.
3
The First Amendment is at risk. Religion, Speech, Press. This has been evident for some time. Why didn't the media reveal this before the election? The press. TV media and internet purveyors undermined not only their own well-being but that of the entire country and every citizen. In the name of free speech Zuckerberg at al contributed, even if inadvertently, to taking it away by encouraging and paying for false information. The NYT, most journals and TV media focused almost entirely on the "campaign" and polls instead of investigating, analyzing and reporting on substantive issues.
If a libel suit can be filed for running an ad with minor wrong facts, why can a candidate run ads on TV that are deliberately malicious with no proof? (HRC's negative ads featured proof - the man himself; the Donald's did not).
Blaming is not an option now. We are all in trouble. I hope for all our sake that some or all of the "other billionaires" (e.g.., Buffet, Bloomberg, Gates and even Zuckerberg) will pull together and save our free speech and in so doing also save freedom of religion and the 4th estate. Finding ways to call out lies or ignoring them rather than fanning the flames is critical. Exposing this would-be King for who he is and what he can do beyond the NYT article is essential. There are higher principles at stake and a greater responsibility to the nation.
If a libel suit can be filed for running an ad with minor wrong facts, why can a candidate run ads on TV that are deliberately malicious with no proof? (HRC's negative ads featured proof - the man himself; the Donald's did not).
Blaming is not an option now. We are all in trouble. I hope for all our sake that some or all of the "other billionaires" (e.g.., Buffet, Bloomberg, Gates and even Zuckerberg) will pull together and save our free speech and in so doing also save freedom of religion and the 4th estate. Finding ways to call out lies or ignoring them rather than fanning the flames is critical. Exposing this would-be King for who he is and what he can do beyond the NYT article is essential. There are higher principles at stake and a greater responsibility to the nation.
23
Organizations like the NYT, CNN, MSNBC are at a moment in time where they have taken specific social and political agendas to an inflection point. You could even include Fox in this, but the balance of thought with M. Kelly and O'Reilly outweigh most of the other noise.
While I lean right, I don't appreciate the overreaching, agenda pushing news stories on either side of the table. The Presidential Election, however, exposed a process that intertwined media and political operations on the left that has the average US citizen scratching their head. Most of us realize there is no such thing as reporting without bias. Just as there is no individual person with bias. We all have it, some are just more vocal and pronounced in their beliefs. But, the lack of ethical compass displayed with the DNC, NYT and CNN during the Hilary Clinton election march was too much too swallow and you now have major reporting entities that are compromised.
How will these organizations recover and regain the respect of those of us in the middle? Do they even care? The ratings and subscription levels suggest they don't.
But I will hand it to PE Trump. Releasing the UTube video of his progress and plan without the tampering of the left leaning media is an avenue he should continue. It hits them where it hurts and let's the people decide for themselves. This is a great use of the Bully Pulpit in a new media way.
Good work PE Trump.
While I lean right, I don't appreciate the overreaching, agenda pushing news stories on either side of the table. The Presidential Election, however, exposed a process that intertwined media and political operations on the left that has the average US citizen scratching their head. Most of us realize there is no such thing as reporting without bias. Just as there is no individual person with bias. We all have it, some are just more vocal and pronounced in their beliefs. But, the lack of ethical compass displayed with the DNC, NYT and CNN during the Hilary Clinton election march was too much too swallow and you now have major reporting entities that are compromised.
How will these organizations recover and regain the respect of those of us in the middle? Do they even care? The ratings and subscription levels suggest they don't.
But I will hand it to PE Trump. Releasing the UTube video of his progress and plan without the tampering of the left leaning media is an avenue he should continue. It hits them where it hurts and let's the people decide for themselves. This is a great use of the Bully Pulpit in a new media way.
Good work PE Trump.
2
I hope Trump uses You Tube exclusively. With You Tube I can choose to watch. Or not. I'm done with seeing his beady little eyes squinting at the TelePrompTer.
1
Thats what happens when news outlets put ratings before truth. Truth, is not biased, reporters sat in from of Trump and his surrogates and didnt call out blatant lies. Matt Laur is the example that comes to mind. He allowed Trump to lie to his face. Money over truth, power over people.
6
Mr. Thin Skin......is going to lose this battle with the media in the long run.
This is a stupid childish fight for him, Trump has too many skeleton's in his closet in business and private to be doing this, he will be destroyed.
Trump needs to understand that he did not win a mandate, and by far is the most unpopular President ever elected, he even lost the popular vote by almost 2 million votes to Hillary Clinton.
This is a stupid childish fight for him, Trump has too many skeleton's in his closet in business and private to be doing this, he will be destroyed.
Trump needs to understand that he did not win a mandate, and by far is the most unpopular President ever elected, he even lost the popular vote by almost 2 million votes to Hillary Clinton.
3
That two million number? Came from one state.........California. No surprise there.
Thank you for this thoughtful and important piece.
I would ask that we quit referring to the alt-right and call it what it is.
I would ask that we quit referring to the alt-right and call it what it is.
7
I do have real fears about the assaults on the press, combined with the financial pressures - and a public where a large number of people l do not read news or in depth stories.
Where the media including the press has - in Trump's case - greatly assisted HIS efforts - essentially making its own Frankenstein - in the dumb way that it has reported his pronouncements, over and over. Ye gads, you must know that when you report his tweets, people remember what he claimed, not someone's small print analysis of why it isn't accurate, and not that it seems weird for a man in this position to be ranting at 3 AM. when the same video clips of him making snarky attacks are run again and again -- what do viewers remember?
And as cphntn noted: his supporters held to a belief that Obama was going to take their guns through 8 years; they are pro 2nd amendment -- but are not in the least acquainted with the 1st, or other Amendments. One wonders what they were exposed to in school.
Where the media including the press has - in Trump's case - greatly assisted HIS efforts - essentially making its own Frankenstein - in the dumb way that it has reported his pronouncements, over and over. Ye gads, you must know that when you report his tweets, people remember what he claimed, not someone's small print analysis of why it isn't accurate, and not that it seems weird for a man in this position to be ranting at 3 AM. when the same video clips of him making snarky attacks are run again and again -- what do viewers remember?
And as cphntn noted: his supporters held to a belief that Obama was going to take their guns through 8 years; they are pro 2nd amendment -- but are not in the least acquainted with the 1st, or other Amendments. One wonders what they were exposed to in school.
6
You lost me when you got to “Peter Thiel Is Totally Gay, People" and started making excuses for the publication of the Hulk Hogan sex tape. This isn't journalism; It's homophobia and invasion of privacy, respectively (I have no idea whether or not Mr. Thiel is gay but it is homophobia either way).
Your defense of the Hogan tape is particularly ugly; joking about having had sex with brunettes is not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as having Gawker post a private tape showing you having sex.
And the Rolling Stone article, in which students and administrators were falsely accused of rape, an accusation that can send people to prison and ruin their reputations for life? Given that Rolling Stone ignored ever principle of responsible journalism, how is it possible to defend that?
I really am chilled by the prospect that, without a Supreme Court backstop, Donald Trump will use the courts as a weapon to muzzle the responsible press. But calling libel and invasion of privacy journalism does nothing to protect the responsible press; indeed, the activity of organizations like Gawker threaten freedom of the press by consistently and knowingly abusing it. In doing so, not only do those organizations harm their victims, they create public distrust in the press as a whole, and make responsible organizations more vulnerable to political assault.
Your defense of the Hogan tape is particularly ugly; joking about having had sex with brunettes is not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as having Gawker post a private tape showing you having sex.
And the Rolling Stone article, in which students and administrators were falsely accused of rape, an accusation that can send people to prison and ruin their reputations for life? Given that Rolling Stone ignored ever principle of responsible journalism, how is it possible to defend that?
I really am chilled by the prospect that, without a Supreme Court backstop, Donald Trump will use the courts as a weapon to muzzle the responsible press. But calling libel and invasion of privacy journalism does nothing to protect the responsible press; indeed, the activity of organizations like Gawker threaten freedom of the press by consistently and knowingly abusing it. In doing so, not only do those organizations harm their victims, they create public distrust in the press as a whole, and make responsible organizations more vulnerable to political assault.
7
Meanwhile the NYT is supporting censorship. Only for other media outlets of course, but it is censorship all the same.
They mean "false news" of course, but this is coming from the purveyor of false news about Iraq and so much else.
It is fantasy to imagine we can play at censorship and it won't come back on all the rest of the media. That was the whole point of NYT v Sullivan and the "chilling effect" of any censorship.
Now rich guys try to limit media the way the NYT wants to limit other media. How shocking. That is it coming back at you, already.
They mean "false news" of course, but this is coming from the purveyor of false news about Iraq and so much else.
It is fantasy to imagine we can play at censorship and it won't come back on all the rest of the media. That was the whole point of NYT v Sullivan and the "chilling effect" of any censorship.
Now rich guys try to limit media the way the NYT wants to limit other media. How shocking. That is it coming back at you, already.
6
It's called an oligarchy of the rich, and we must fight against them at all times. We must stop the rich from ruining the country, and we must "claw back" the illegal wealth they have stolen since Reagan through a rigged tax system.
10
There will be no checks and balances come January 2017. The media will be the only voice to question authority.
The media created this mess by the free press given to Trump during the campaign without the same amount of coverage for HRC. All publicity is good publicity and Trump had the backing of a Goebbels-like puppet master. The media got played.
The media gave Wikileaks a voice without fact checking if they had edited their documents - and the press gave them credibility when we have no idea if they what they published was truthful. Why publish stolen documents? As you are learning destroys true freedom of speech
You were so quick to publish anything - all the media not just NYT's you took all the bait from alt-right anti HRC and made it truth.
Our only way to make sure Trump plays by the rules is a media that is clear and loud when he is breaking them. Please do your job this time and stop being salacious.
The media created this mess by the free press given to Trump during the campaign without the same amount of coverage for HRC. All publicity is good publicity and Trump had the backing of a Goebbels-like puppet master. The media got played.
The media gave Wikileaks a voice without fact checking if they had edited their documents - and the press gave them credibility when we have no idea if they what they published was truthful. Why publish stolen documents? As you are learning destroys true freedom of speech
You were so quick to publish anything - all the media not just NYT's you took all the bait from alt-right anti HRC and made it truth.
Our only way to make sure Trump plays by the rules is a media that is clear and loud when he is breaking them. Please do your job this time and stop being salacious.
7
Use images. Time date and stamp them. Cover the consequences of alt right and the history of right wing extremism. "Discriminating is ok" was long the defense of southern sororities and fraternities in the 1960s and has been revived. Cover PR and advertising strategies. And get better ad agencies to hone the value of media (a pain but necessary).
I fear one issue is we have a voting population of questionable morals that is willing to overturn our democracy to have their way.
I fear one issue is we have a voting population of questionable morals that is willing to overturn our democracy to have their way.
3
Sorry, Ms. Bazelon. The Sullivan case is "revered" only by journalists who hide behind its overly broad shield. Libel laws in many western countries are far more realistic than the ridiculous protections afforded anyone who calls himself an American journalist. In the UK for example [ hardly a country without a vibrant press ] libel doesn't require a finding of actual malice. Instead, libel laws are reasonably used to punish sloppy and inaccurate journalism, and provide a genuinely injured party some redress. I, for one, would welcome a similar standard in American law.
5
The UK also has a more literate and ethical citizenry, with deep roots of common decency that the United States has always thumbed its nose at while wallowing in the lowest gutter possible.
1
While not to condone for a heartbeat Trump's increasing cries of "Luegenpresse" to his fans, not as campaigner but as future president, I think this is a moment for the fourth estate to dig deep and reflect.
First, what continues the "press" these days? Venerable institutions like NYT or also fifth estate places like Breitbart news, hyper sensational TV cable networks, twitter? Fifth estate is here, and it will be trump's chosen (and possibly only) medium for communicating with the public. We must accept this.
Second, many media should consider going nonprofit. One reason that only 40% might say they trust the press is because of the business model. Trump has been both the news media's obsession and piggy bank for over a year; the press has stoked the fears rather than explain what's really going on. This was a business move, not a public service. That much is transparent. Remove that motive, and you may get reporters doing the unsexy, unglamorous job of digging for the truth and then reporting it, rather than capitulating to the biases of their core customers. For as long as "the press" behaves as a business, Trump will be able to attack it as just another business.
Finally, the NYT has to stop hanging out only in the corridors of power and take a healthy interest in the rest of the country. Don't act like an elite. Send reporters to the small red states and keep them there until, to quote the future president, we 'can figure out whats going on.'
First, what continues the "press" these days? Venerable institutions like NYT or also fifth estate places like Breitbart news, hyper sensational TV cable networks, twitter? Fifth estate is here, and it will be trump's chosen (and possibly only) medium for communicating with the public. We must accept this.
Second, many media should consider going nonprofit. One reason that only 40% might say they trust the press is because of the business model. Trump has been both the news media's obsession and piggy bank for over a year; the press has stoked the fears rather than explain what's really going on. This was a business move, not a public service. That much is transparent. Remove that motive, and you may get reporters doing the unsexy, unglamorous job of digging for the truth and then reporting it, rather than capitulating to the biases of their core customers. For as long as "the press" behaves as a business, Trump will be able to attack it as just another business.
Finally, the NYT has to stop hanging out only in the corridors of power and take a healthy interest in the rest of the country. Don't act like an elite. Send reporters to the small red states and keep them there until, to quote the future president, we 'can figure out whats going on.'
9
One has to wonder if all of you would be preaching to the Times the way you do....go to the red states etc., etc., if Hillary had won.....I sincerely doubt that very much. For nearly two years into her campaign did any of you lefties consider the plight of those in the red states? Doubtful.
2
I'm not sure who this "you Lefties" is, considering I've been a proud Independent for over a decade. But I did in fact believe that most Americans in the end would reject Trump on the sheer fact that his character is so vulgar and nasty. Mocking a disabled person to get a cheap laugh? Starting a twitter war and calling a former Miss Universe fat? C'non...who really wants a person like that as president. I consider this country full of decent people. Trump is indecent, and yet people elected him. So yes, this really has nothing to do with red/blue, left/right, but the more basic question of what has happened to the people of this county to actually like a man with a character like that? I for one, would like to know, and I think that IS the job of journalism. Leave emotions and tired cliches of left/right for twitter. It doesn't belong in the press. And the people who usually use them don't really know what these terms even mean, outside of what their twitter feed tells them.
1
A cold, hard truth when it comes to interactions between the press and the elite is something that I read from a blogger about 10 years ago. "You can't be friends with the people you are supposed to be writing about." Too many in the media have personal friendships/connections with elite individuals ranging from politicians to the silicon valley CEOs. Too many considered it a status symbol to be able to ring an elite up on their personal phone for a comment, one of those elites being Donald Trump. As was pointed out in another article, the process was to excoriate the press in public, and offer conciliatory winks in private to media associates in order maintain personal contacts and shallow coverage. The media got hoodwinked by these people, and are now spending time trying to figure out how to regain their dignity.
156
Not hoodwinked, Renee. Agreeably connned. But they get to go to the "best" parties and are "called" to the tower to kiss The Con Don's ring.
1
In media land, they are called SOURCES, and one needs sources in order to check and recheck FACTS.
One thing to mention is a new challenge to British journalism. A new Press Regulator, Impress, backed by Max Mosley, has recently been recognised by the Press Recognition Panel - despite having no major newspapers or magazines signed up to it. There is the possibility that Newspapers that do not sign up to impress (who's impartiality are suspect) could face legal penalties under a proposed new law that would require them to pay both sides legal costs in the event of a libel suit - even if they won!
2
"the president-elect among them"
"Can they succeed?"
They already did. One of them, a supporter of (if not outright among) white supremacists, a journalist-harassing* anti-fact antisemitic internet mob, and the forced-pregnancy right, is now the president-elect. That's certainly beyond even their wildest dreams and expectations.
*See: Megyn Kelly and the president-elect's "beautiful Twitter account".
"Can they succeed?"
They already did. One of them, a supporter of (if not outright among) white supremacists, a journalist-harassing* anti-fact antisemitic internet mob, and the forced-pregnancy right, is now the president-elect. That's certainly beyond even their wildest dreams and expectations.
*See: Megyn Kelly and the president-elect's "beautiful Twitter account".
5
The media must understand that this is a war. Give no quarter and ask for none. The media folks who met with Trump are Pollyannaish fools.
Be sure of the accuracy of your reporting before publishing.
Realize the plutocrats are not trying to control what you publish; they are trying to destroy you.
Always mention your adversary's most significant companies and products, so the public can avoid using or purchasing them.
Be sure of the accuracy of your reporting before publishing.
Realize the plutocrats are not trying to control what you publish; they are trying to destroy you.
Always mention your adversary's most significant companies and products, so the public can avoid using or purchasing them.
15
It amazes me when I hear Republicans and conservatives argue how we need a strong second amendment to protect us from government tyranny. The second amendment protects us from nothing of the sort. The only protection this country has from tyranny is the free press and the right to vote, both of which are under assault.
The free press or the fourth estate is what keeps governmental, business and individual actors in check and to keep the American public informed. Being an informed citizenry means the press at times having to dig deep and expose culprits. We can expect nothing less from the press.
Make no mistake the press is under assault today. Democracy and democratic institutions are just empty words without the press and its fierce protections of our freedoms. The press is made up of humans that have made mistakes, but on the whole does a pretty damn good job.
You want to protect yourself from government tyranny Conservatives? Don't buy a gun; support and strengthen the press.
The free press or the fourth estate is what keeps governmental, business and individual actors in check and to keep the American public informed. Being an informed citizenry means the press at times having to dig deep and expose culprits. We can expect nothing less from the press.
Make no mistake the press is under assault today. Democracy and democratic institutions are just empty words without the press and its fierce protections of our freedoms. The press is made up of humans that have made mistakes, but on the whole does a pretty damn good job.
You want to protect yourself from government tyranny Conservatives? Don't buy a gun; support and strengthen the press.
76
Thank you Mr. Theil for your action in supporting the Gawker litigation. Less financially capable people have no chance when the publishers of questionable journalistic value run free. The press since the Sullivan decision have felt free to say anything about anyone considered in the remotest sense a public figure.
Historically, the considerable freedom of speech granted to the free press was balanced against the duty of that free press to report responsibly and, by responsibly, I mean accurately and fairly. It seems to me that the competitive growth between news sources has encouraged increasingly the headline grabbing half-truths that do less to inform than often to simply tar, feather and destroy.
The NYT coverage of the 2016 Presidential election is a case study of internal bias driving its headlines, content and editorials. A little more work to separate truth from fiction coupled with writers who try and understand the competing forces around any issue is needed. Keep your opinions in your editorials.
Historically, the considerable freedom of speech granted to the free press was balanced against the duty of that free press to report responsibly and, by responsibly, I mean accurately and fairly. It seems to me that the competitive growth between news sources has encouraged increasingly the headline grabbing half-truths that do less to inform than often to simply tar, feather and destroy.
The NYT coverage of the 2016 Presidential election is a case study of internal bias driving its headlines, content and editorials. A little more work to separate truth from fiction coupled with writers who try and understand the competing forces around any issue is needed. Keep your opinions in your editorials.
1
I have issues with the NYT reporting in 2002-3, but not during the recent election. It's not the paper's fault that so many legitimate polls were wrong, although the fact that Hillary is approaching 2 million more votes than DJT suggests perhaps they weren't so wrong after all.
As Trump attacks the media, aiming to remove perspective from journalism, we should remind ourselves of another tragic but ultimately failed attack on the media: "Je suis Charlie."
8
Citizens, it is our duty to demand a free press and not allow the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful. Because despite winning the vote of the "little guy," the President-elect is one of the elite.
8
Media particularly;TV reporters and also News papers have displayed below average intelligence in reporting the events and statements by the presidential candidates. Reporters must repoert the situations as they are and not the way they want the outcome.
4
Just wait, it's only going to get worse!!
2
There is a low regard for the press today but a great demand for the legitimate press to defend liberties and free speech. At the end of this election we learned that many respected media outlets were in fact distorting and misinforming the public about the poll results to provide a more positive momentum for Hillary Clinton. Factual reporting seems to have been tossed out the window by writing opinionated stories for their readers consumption and hopefully ride a subscription surge just as what occurred with the election of President Obama whereas the readers became "Obama's people" and saved the circulation and viewers of the mainstream media elite. We should not fall prey to this again and allow disinformation to be distributed ever. Opinionated writings are just that and must always be neatly tucked under the "Opinions or Publisher's viewpoints" columns so that uninformed readers are not duped into thinking that opinion is fact, it's not, it's only the writer's viewpoint. This is very important folks otherwise we might as well read free Russian newspapers every day!
1
This excellent, longform piece can be boiled down to one message: these people are complete and utter cowards. They sit in their towers with their money, their yes men, and their carefully manicured information. The quiver if anyone challenges them and lash out like overtired children. They're too sensitive to live in a world with hard facts and complexity, so they want to cancel that world using their fun money. They're so insecure about their mediocrity that they have to go after people who display signs of excellence.
Never forget this: they like to bluster and threaten because deep down they're weak individuals who can't reckon with a complex society and are too frightened to stand up for ideals.
Never forget this: they like to bluster and threaten because deep down they're weak individuals who can't reckon with a complex society and are too frightened to stand up for ideals.
2
Vanadias- an excellent description of DJT!
I wish you'd keep Gawker out if the freedom of the press issue. Gawker got in trouble for things that weren't journalism. Publishing a sex tape isn't journalism.
They also famously reported that a non-famous, mid-level, married Conde Nast executive used male prostitutes. What was the public interest value in that? None. They were a claque of Mean Girls, not journalists.
They also famously reported that a non-famous, mid-level, married Conde Nast executive used male prostitutes. What was the public interest value in that? None. They were a claque of Mean Girls, not journalists.
199
Why keep Gawker out of the freedom of press issue. Gawker and other publications of this sort is where people think they are getting legitimate news. How do you think a reality TV star got to be President?
1
Rolling stone ran a story falsely accusing a group of men of rape, and another group of people of covering up a rape. That was clearly a case of libel. This is hardly an example of the press being threatened by billionaires.
1
I disagree
Most Americans would be disgusted by that and withdraw their financial support of a business that hired people like that
It's called morals which New York isn't known for
If it's true then it should be published
Privacy means that you get to have prostitutes but you can be outed for it
Most Americans would be disgusted by that and withdraw their financial support of a business that hired people like that
It's called morals which New York isn't known for
If it's true then it should be published
Privacy means that you get to have prostitutes but you can be outed for it
Waiting eagerly for Woodward and Bernstein.
122
Today's W&B aspire to work for Facebook, ESPN, and porn sites. The news business has always eaten its young and failed to even adequately pay its most dedicated and hard working journalists out in the non-urban heartland, until they give up and out of poverty take a job in another industry or corporate marketing/PR.
1
I love this comment, I've thought the same thing many times since 11/9. Come on, NYT. Bring out your Woodward and Bernstein, 2016 edition.
1
Don't hold your breath. Woodward has become something of an apologist for the right of center and Bernstein does not appear to be in the business of investigative reporting any longer, as far as I can tell. Under the Trump/Theil approach to media, the Woodward & Berstein of old would have been stopped in their tracks with threats of litigation long before Deepthroat gave them the last bit of actionable information. Fascism could then have taken hold long before 2017, the year of its likely debut.
After hearing that Trump refused to meet with your paper because you wouldn't play his game, I promptly went online and paid for a subscription. I had always used my ten free articles a month, always wishing I subscribed but today, I took the plunge because I feel I can trust the New York Times. Thank you.
8
Good move. The Washington Post should be right there with the NYTimes on your "trust" team. It's currently being blackballed by Trump for, amongst other reporting, standing up to his threats of removing access. It hasn't hindered their reporting–on the contrary, they still find easily accessible ways to report on his shenanigans, and very assertively. See today's edition for more.
2
This is how it starts. My son is a high school history teacher and during the campaign his students brought up to him how similar Trumps tactics were to Mussolni's. He noticed it too but did not point it out because he didn't want to be seen as biased.
A quick read on these type of tactics is "God's Banker" by Gerald Posner. Just read the first six chapters or so.
A quick read on these type of tactics is "God's Banker" by Gerald Posner. Just read the first six chapters or so.
3
Thanks. References and citations are much appreciated.
1
On January 1st this country will be on sale to the highest bidder.
2
It has already been bought and paid for by those on K Street. Where have you been?
As if Trump had a part in this. Look to the D's candidate pick to see who was on sale.
As if Trump had a part in this. Look to the D's candidate pick to see who was on sale.
In the First Amendment, the "Bill of Rights" provides for 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of the Press,' which liberal media organizations (like the NYT and CNN) have used to attack or fail to defend our other "Rights" including the "Right To Bear Arms!"
The New York Times (and liberal media) has failed in their responsibility to defend all parts of the Bill of Rights. Did the media speak out against wars and aggression? Did the media speak out against the abuses that Snowden revealed? Did the media speak out against the "Patriot Act?" Did the media speak out against illegal wiretapping? No, you did not. Your failure to defend all of our rights is part of the reason our country is in this mess. You failed to learn the lessons Martin Niemöller taught and warned us about!
Don't come crying to the public when the government turns its attention on the press... you didn't help defend those rights that were important to me and others!
The New York Times (and liberal media) has failed in their responsibility to defend all parts of the Bill of Rights. Did the media speak out against wars and aggression? Did the media speak out against the abuses that Snowden revealed? Did the media speak out against the "Patriot Act?" Did the media speak out against illegal wiretapping? No, you did not. Your failure to defend all of our rights is part of the reason our country is in this mess. You failed to learn the lessons Martin Niemöller taught and warned us about!
Don't come crying to the public when the government turns its attention on the press... you didn't help defend those rights that were important to me and others!
1
Speaking of undue influence, does anyone out there remember?:
A quote from Bill Gates, "Business is war." My recollection is this was publicized and Mr. Gates then felt compelled to retract the statement.
Every now and then I try to find reporting on this episode on the Web to no avail.
In any event, business is war.
A quote from Bill Gates, "Business is war." My recollection is this was publicized and Mr. Gates then felt compelled to retract the statement.
Every now and then I try to find reporting on this episode on the Web to no avail.
In any event, business is war.
2
Im for a free press, but the more often than not the press tends to pander to the prejudices of its readers.Im all for newspapers to have a political leaning but that doesn't mean one has to criticize everything that comes from other party.
The press cant pick and choose what to report and what not.
The press cant pick and choose what to report and what not.
2
Mr Singh- but it can. It is supposed to be a free and open marketplace of ideas.
For the roots of this problem, look to the telecommunications act of 1996. This opened the gates for a few to control the voice of the media, and remove diversity.
6
The Conservatives have long since believed that the truth somehow (inconveniently) had a liberal bias. That was the driving force behind Ailes and the creation of Fox and their alternate, truth-free media. Trump has been getting the benefit of that truth-free media for at least six years; most of it air time from Fox.
That will continue on into the future, with Fox, Breitbart, and some select others becoming essentially State-run media not unlike something out of Eastern Europe. Everything else will be deemed non-patriotic, much like what we saw after 911. But how to deal with it?
To answer that, I do believe that one should also read a companion piece, also in the NYT, from Luigi Zingales, "The Right Way to Resist Trump", in which he relates that successful politicians "treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on his character."
Mr Zingales was delivering advice to the Democrats, but that same logic should hold true with the media. Instead of focusing on the flash and trash (and there will be plenty of it), focus instead on the issues straight up. That is what the Times does so well, and is why Trump is trying to destroy it.
Like any good attorney/writer, Emily has eloquently quantified the risk, but the discussion should now turn to strategic planning to convert that risk into reward. It starts with not giving in to the flash and trash, or the head games. Dig relentlessly for the facts, and hammer it home. The threat is real.
That will continue on into the future, with Fox, Breitbart, and some select others becoming essentially State-run media not unlike something out of Eastern Europe. Everything else will be deemed non-patriotic, much like what we saw after 911. But how to deal with it?
To answer that, I do believe that one should also read a companion piece, also in the NYT, from Luigi Zingales, "The Right Way to Resist Trump", in which he relates that successful politicians "treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on his character."
Mr Zingales was delivering advice to the Democrats, but that same logic should hold true with the media. Instead of focusing on the flash and trash (and there will be plenty of it), focus instead on the issues straight up. That is what the Times does so well, and is why Trump is trying to destroy it.
Like any good attorney/writer, Emily has eloquently quantified the risk, but the discussion should now turn to strategic planning to convert that risk into reward. It starts with not giving in to the flash and trash, or the head games. Dig relentlessly for the facts, and hammer it home. The threat is real.
3
Possibly, Trump is taking his cues about how to relate to the press from his buddy, Putin.
7
The media, now more than ever, needs to remain strong against criticisms from the Right. The country is so totally dependent upon our media to get the unmitigated truth out and not the propaganda, lies, and misinformation that Trump would love to shove down our throats. Don't be bullied or railroaded by Trump. The country needs a "free press" now more than ever!
4
Maybe if both the NYT and the WP hadn't run, nonstop, daily multiple articles about every utterance that came from Trump the country wouldn't be in this disastrous mess right now. It was nonstop coverage of Trump and Sanders until Hillary was nominated. Then it was 9 or 10 articles on Trump and 1 on Hillary. I literally would count them it was so obvious. No sympathy here.
4
We must have been reading two different issues of the Times, it was All Hillary all the time. When they did run a story on Bernie they somehow turned it around and made it into a Hillary story. Sanders to them was an afterthought.
1
Soft fascism much? This is how a democracy dies, the already awful mainstream press will become more obsequious, there will be two sides to every story, 'pedophilia - yes /no' no matter how absurd, terms such as "alt right ' will be used instead of neo fascist, white power racist, etc, and it will all be normalized, welcome to the world of oligarchs and white Christian zealots, buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride
2
Germany, before the war. You might care to read about it.
4
Depends who has the better lawyers and the judges on their side. Sorry America but the deck is stacked in favor of the billionaires.
2
The NYT's and it's chicken little (Tump is failing) reporting, helped Trump get elected and proved the establishment media was as crooked as Hillary Clinton.
So now it's TIME 4 UR Payback.
So now it's TIME 4 UR Payback.
4
Money has become the "volume control" of loudspeaker and freedom of speech. This is another example of how money can increase the volume to deafening levels for others.
Can the role of money in the society be redefined, the volume control be reconfigured to throttle it back with an equalizer?
Can the role of money in the society be redefined, the volume control be reconfigured to throttle it back with an equalizer?
1
Long live the press! Thank you, New York Times.
8
I don't know, are you going to let them?
4
You watched them do it to the Democrats and particularly Hillary Clinton, and you barely bothered to notice. Now they're coming after you. Be ready to fight with everything you have, because the people are in danger, and we need you. We did all along.
88
The media gave billions in free press to tRump because he is ..he sucks all the air out of the room. The media got sticky elyeballs and used tRump as click bait. And the real story of the super con got lost. The hacking of the DNC servers and the use of that to steal the election was not pursued. Why? The press is already under the control of those in power. And it ain't the liberals. Saying the press is liberal is a rhetorical projection strategy. Blaming the other guy for exactly what you're doing. tRump and his cronies used that over the last year. The 'free' press never called them on it. Liberal press, fat chance.
2
If the person elected to be president DARES to start chomping at freedom of the press, he can expect to never have any peace. The one thing the USA has that keeps us from ever being RUSSIA, is speaking freely in the press. We will never be Russia, you insane clown.
15
I assume this is irony.
2
Whilst I do not condone video releases of private sex acts by news media , the NYT must take comfort in that it is the most referenced newspaper in the world.
Keep up the good work .
Keep up the good work .
8
Hiding underneath the name tag "media" doesn't give you the right to slander, lie and defame people. I--an American of average means--strongly support the billionaires who have the means to fight against the liberal mass media. 60% of Americans distrust the media according to Gallup. Your reputation precedes you. Many Americans suspect that your NYC based newspapers are propaganda machines that support a very "extreme left" New York brand of radical liberalism. Freedom of the press isn't a pass to freely lie about people. We have laws to handle slander and libel.
40
Lol. Calm down donny. Your NYC dictator just got us hacked into a new Russian puppet state. You need to get an education to understand what is going on now. Libel, your rhetorical strategy of projection worked well enough for the last year. You object when somebody else does it.
8
Even a press that gets it wrong will be corrected, whereas a dictator President will not and has all the forces of government to use against others. Take your pick, sir, there is no middle ground in the fight against a demagogue.
9
Where are the examples of "a pass to freely lie about people?" If there are examples of these lies, where are the slander and libel based lawsuits?
5
...“knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.” Do as I say not as I do, eh Mr. Trump?
22
So correct!
you reap what you sow
3
Ah this is why he canceled the NY Times meeting today! Don't roll over NYT - you done us wrong during the election and now you can redeem yourself by making the bully (or bullies) squirm!
20
Actually, he changed his mind. The NYT wouldn't interview with Trump folks insisting on having Trump's words off the record; Trump wanted the publicity, ergo, the interview was on the record. PBS NEWS HOUR reported this tonight.
DJT continuing Twitter assault on you tells me one thing... you're hitting hard where "he lives". I'm rewarding you by buying a years subscription... Stay vigilant and keep busy. The world has rarely needed a free and vocal press more than it does right now.
34
Continued bias coverage, front page of paper and now magazine filled with it.
All the news that fits we print, RIP NYT.
All the news that fits we print, RIP NYT.
6
Remember, the NYT is owned by billionaires, i.e. NYT, INC. They control what the NYT writes and prints. The whole system stinks to high heaven. Karl Marx got it right. Capitalism without checks and balances leads to eventual mayhem!
22
In a related article today concerning Trump's Tuesday meeting with The New York Times-
"...there is also a short off-the-record session planned, which Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump described as an opportunity to discuss past and future coverage."
That president-elect Trump wants to continue to air his grievances about his "very unfair" coverage during the campaign is unsurprising, but that he wants to know more about how future coverage will be handled is as outrageous as it is terrifying.
Our message to Donald Trump about First Amendment Rights can only be-
"DON'T TREAD ON ME!"
"...there is also a short off-the-record session planned, which Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump described as an opportunity to discuss past and future coverage."
That president-elect Trump wants to continue to air his grievances about his "very unfair" coverage during the campaign is unsurprising, but that he wants to know more about how future coverage will be handled is as outrageous as it is terrifying.
Our message to Donald Trump about First Amendment Rights can only be-
"DON'T TREAD ON ME!"
8
Do your job and quit worrying about your existence. Trump is throwing another black cat on the table....the rich v media....and you are treating it as an existential threat. The threat is the joker who defrauded thousands of ordinary people through a scheme called "Trump University". He admitted guilt (times 25MM). Who pays that kind of money for a frivolous suit? You have to keep this story alive independently of some raging congressman....you did a good job with emails....this is a bigger story as is his tax returns and his conflicts of interest by using the office of The President to enrich himself. For Ms Clinton that was "pay for play"....what do you call it when Trump does the same thing?
He gathers you for a confidential meeting to "reset" and plays you by then allowing Drudge and Brietbart to declare that he slapped you around. When will you learn?
He gathers you for a confidential meeting to "reset" and plays you by then allowing Drudge and Brietbart to declare that he slapped you around. When will you learn?
6
There are many times when the NYT and other media outlets break and publish stories that need to be heard. Thank you.
Unfortunately, there are so many more instances when the NYT and other media outlets use the press as a mechanism to push forward their own liberal agenda. This is done by failing to report some stories and reporting others with an implied liberal value underlying the story. From the perspective of whether the person or issue in the story damages or supports the viewpoint of the reporter.
As Liz Spayd has been desperately trying to communicate to the NYT reporters, readers want fair, balanced coverage of issues which do not succumb to the temptations of salacious sound bites or dumb down complex and multi sided issues into polarizing, oversimplified and often false "this or that" choices. That is the first level of dissatisfaction with the press. The second level is the effect this type of reporting has on the readers and the nation...we all now think of each other in unidimensional, polarized stereotypes because of cheap, biased reporting. People are asking for more and better, and in pretty clear language, but the reporters just can't see it.
If, in general, the press could use self-control to limit itself to quality, balanced coverage of actual news, maybe the public would be more supportive when a few bullies try to reign them in.
Unfortunately, there are so many more instances when the NYT and other media outlets use the press as a mechanism to push forward their own liberal agenda. This is done by failing to report some stories and reporting others with an implied liberal value underlying the story. From the perspective of whether the person or issue in the story damages or supports the viewpoint of the reporter.
As Liz Spayd has been desperately trying to communicate to the NYT reporters, readers want fair, balanced coverage of issues which do not succumb to the temptations of salacious sound bites or dumb down complex and multi sided issues into polarizing, oversimplified and often false "this or that" choices. That is the first level of dissatisfaction with the press. The second level is the effect this type of reporting has on the readers and the nation...we all now think of each other in unidimensional, polarized stereotypes because of cheap, biased reporting. People are asking for more and better, and in pretty clear language, but the reporters just can't see it.
If, in general, the press could use self-control to limit itself to quality, balanced coverage of actual news, maybe the public would be more supportive when a few bullies try to reign them in.
99
The press is controlled by the people that own it. They are not liberals. They are billionaires that want tax cuts, deregulation, and fat government contracts.
Wake up.
Wake up.
11
Let's make it clear that the Times does not have a Liberal agenda. Liberals supported Bernie. The Times supported a corrupt warmonger 1%er. Nothing Liberal about that.
1
And who would deem what that "balanced coverage of actual news" be, Ann? As far as I can see, the "liberal" NYT spent infinitely more space and effort on Hillary Clinton's emails than on the myriad of displays of Trump's lack of experience or respect for the job of POTUS.
9
Even CNN is reporting Most people say he Trunp will do a good job. And the NYTimes continue to portray him as pure evil. NYTimes used to just liberal but is now becoming just opinion. Stop sending me postcards to renew my subscription.
7
Don Imus started making Trump more appealing by having him call in to his morning radio program in the 1980s. Imus claimed he only revels in the freak parade and the agony of others while doing some good charitable work for veterans and children with cancer. Now that he will be President we will see if the nuanced Trump is more than a builder and celebrity brand enhancer.Remember the Macy's ads? The NY Times deserved to take a hit with the Barbaro feature on his old girlfriends but most of its coverage has been fair aside from the columnists ranting about beware Trump. Maureen Dowd also takes a hit for being too phone cozy with him,earlier. CBS News has not distinguished itself either in the Election coverage of Trump.If you can,take a look at the LA Times which has done better for quite a while and had the only polling that correctly predicted his victory. The Press will only be as good as those of us who pay for it and tell editors and Publishers to do better work.
3
The reason the media misread this election year so poorly, not to mention the publics sentiment, is that journalists are part of the elite creating this gap. Journalism, much like medicine and law, is a bastion of the middle and upper classes and we're trusting them to interpret the news for us... this election has made it apparent they aren't in touch with much outside of the nearest Manhattan Starbucks.
9
So Medicine and Law are the bastion of the middle and upper classes? Would you have these professions the bastion of the lower classes, which unfortunately consist mostly of people with much less education? Do you want journalists and reporters to not have proper education regarding literature, history, grammar, spelling, and government? All the Republicans seem to need are people with ears to listen to talk radio and eyes to watch Fox News and hence they know, just know what is wrong with America and what needs to be done.
Rich people used to employ thugs and ruffians to get their way, now they hire lawyers instead.
28