An astounding case of journalistic malpractice (and falsehood), guised as a supposedly "nuetral" evaluation. Fact: Kovaleski is disabled, but he is not spasmodic. He does not flail his arms and never has. In fact, on camera, he appears completely normal when framed as a "talking head" and you only notice his seemingly parylized arm if the camera pulls back. You can't mock a non-spasmodic by immitating spasms. If Trump remembered the man, Trump knew this. In fact, Trump was mocking Kovaleski's claim that he did not remember reporting that people in New Jersey were celebrating 9/11. Yet another Trump statement that the press labled a lie but which in fact had support in the record. Meryl Streep, like the NY Times, is merely a Clinton mouthpiece, repeating false stories until everyone is supposed to treat them as true (a la the Goebbels strategy).
I despise the new POTUS, but I found the video clips showing he often flails his arms to mock non-disabled people he's disparaging to be evidence worth looking at. Liz Spayd, have you reviewed it? It seems at least worthy of a mention. I just googled 'trump flails arms' and a slew of articles come up (in right wing sources, presumably) that reference at least 3 videos where trump is flailing his arms - mocking Ted Cruz, a general, etc. He's been caught in enough blatant lies we don't need to push and should fairly present less clear cases like this one.
Ms Spayd -- Perhaps I am too cynical, but I feel you left an elephant-sized issue out of your analysis. Trump is news -- he literally generates clicks and print buys for the media that cover him. It is one of the great challenges to our news media to criticize this golden goose by calling him the liar that he is. If the Times called Trump and then made him look bad in the follow-on story, would he answer the phone next time? Will he instead talk to some other organization who will benefit from the scoop and clicks and buys? I think we need to talk more about this unfortunate equation in terms of money and scoops -- dancing around it to keep the conversation untainted by mercenary issues will not help, will in fact hurt very much.
This assertion that Trump's version of events (he was not mocking the reporter but feigning being frustrated) has been proven false is simply not true (aka Fake News). This is why no one trusts the New York Times or main stream media.
1
Actually it is true. Your comment is false.
1
@Jeoffey
Keep on living in progressive echo chamber and drinking the liberal Kool Aid!!!
Keep on living in progressive echo chamber and drinking the liberal Kool Aid!!!
1
I have been thinking about this story a lot over the past week because it is an important insight into how the press has failed us and at least partially enabled Donald Trump to become our president-elect.
While this piece is to be commended for clearly acknowledging the paper's failure in reporting Trump's lies without comment in this one instance, it seems to let the editor responsible off the hook for being 'candid and undefensive' in placing priority on the scoop and access to Mr. Trump over the obligation to provide full and truthful reporting of the facts. I must, sadly, conclude that she is simply not up to her job when it comes to covering a person whose consistent record of lies and misstatements has been exhaustively documented.
It is nice that the Times has belatedly acknowledged this grave error in judgment, but I cannot help suspect that many fewer readers saw this piece than the original article. The damage has been done. And the larger phenomenon of our national news media allowing a self-aggrandizing serial liar to go unchallenged bodes ill for the future of our democracy.
If we cannot rely on our Paper of Record to uphold higher journalistic standards, then it is no wonder we are in such a mess.
While this piece is to be commended for clearly acknowledging the paper's failure in reporting Trump's lies without comment in this one instance, it seems to let the editor responsible off the hook for being 'candid and undefensive' in placing priority on the scoop and access to Mr. Trump over the obligation to provide full and truthful reporting of the facts. I must, sadly, conclude that she is simply not up to her job when it comes to covering a person whose consistent record of lies and misstatements has been exhaustively documented.
It is nice that the Times has belatedly acknowledged this grave error in judgment, but I cannot help suspect that many fewer readers saw this piece than the original article. The damage has been done. And the larger phenomenon of our national news media allowing a self-aggrandizing serial liar to go unchallenged bodes ill for the future of our democracy.
If we cannot rely on our Paper of Record to uphold higher journalistic standards, then it is no wonder we are in such a mess.
1
Disability Awareness is society today because people are just so afraid of others who are different from them. One of my life’s passions is to educate people on this topic. As I read and saw the video on how Trump was mocking the reporter w ho has as disability, it was very clear to me that education for people with disability is much needed. People just need to be more sensitive to each other and accept those who are different. If Trump was making fun of a reporter who is disabled, than it is very clear to me that he needs to be the first one to be educated.
What is so damn depressing is that the NYTimes appears to be our best hope for mainstream coverage, and yet it offers this lame -- bordering on pathetic -- explanation for why it failed to live up to minimal journalistic standards. What is going on?
4
25 years of elementary school service has allowed me see young children mock each other for their differences. Trump the child would have been sitting out a few recesses and written an apology to the other student had he been in my classroom.
To bad he never had a teacher like me.
To bad he never had a teacher like me.
4
And now Betty DeVos will make sure that the superrich will never have teachers like you.
2
If it's eventually proven, as I think it will be, that Trump colluded with the Russian government to undermine the fairness of the recently concluded election, that constitutes treason. Treason is still a capital offense, I believe.
2
So; why doesn't the NYT do better? Has The Public Editor forum merely become a vehicle of parroting what we readers already know? These mush-mouthed "explanations" hardly fix the problem. What is a "reporter" these days; merely passers-on- of AP Copy? The real disgrace- as pointed out- is when the Reporter is IN the room and does absolutely nothing more than "transcribe" what was stated by one side. The LA Times is beginning to sound more and more like the 2nd Go-To source behind The Washington Post: New York Times (?)
1
Publicizing these mistakes embarrasses the newsroom into trying to do better. I have seen the Times change its policies as a result of the Public Editor.
"reporter who has a physical disability that almost precisely mirrors Trump’s movements that evening."
Is there a video of that reporter's hands movements? Isn't the reporter unable to move his hand?
Is there a video of that reporter's hands movements? Isn't the reporter unable to move his hand?
He wasn't mocking the movements of the guy's hands and arms, but rather their position. He flailed his arms the way he imagined someone whose arms were arranged that way would flail them. He didn't think it through, in other words; he just awkwardly and inaccurately aped the guy. Donald Trump is incompetent even at mocking people.
3
Why are Times reporters and cameramen editors continuing to treat Trump with kid gloves? How could anyone outside of Fox News report that Trump only "appeared" to mock that reporter? I'm really starting to question my subscription....
1
Instead of saying that Trump's version of events was "simply not true" why not call it for what it is - a baldfaced lie. The man is, in addition to many other unsavory and repulsive things, a liar pure and simple.
3
The Times has given Trump free advertising during the entire campaign. Yes, it has published critical articles but it has also published his lies without questioning them. In this instance, Trump started by saying, "You should see this guy." before he did his impersonation of him. It is clear that he was mocking. He even gave advance notice. For the Times, even under time pressure, to neglect to criticize Trump's statements, especially about one of its own reporters, is disgusting. It just highlights the sloppiness of the current Times. It seems its only editor is spell-check and nobody is watching for accuracy. Since the election, I notice the Times treats Trump as mainstream. A lunatic demagogue is about to become President and he is being presented as normal. Every crazy falsehood doesn't have to be published, especially when there is no vetting of his statements for veracity.
11
Trump did not mock. Notice there is no video of the incident. The reporter had written an article after 9/11 saying that after the attacks there were arab americans dancing on rooftops. When Trump years later said he read somewhere about arabs celebrating the attacks the media covered it up saying there was no such article. Then Trump found the article and confronted the lying reporter who happens to be disabled and Trump flailed his hands and was mocking him for lying and acting like he never wrote the article, not for being disabled. The media took still shots of it showing the one second Trumps hand was in a position to appear as if he was mocking the reporters deformed hand but this was faked by the media. Meryl Streep and the media owe Trump an apology.
2
Patty, we've all seen the video.
"flailed his hands and was mocking him for lying"
I've never seen anyone mock someone for lying by flailing their hands. Anyway, we don't usually mock someone for lying. We might criticize or call them out, but mockery isn't the usual response to lying.
"flailed his hands and was mocking him for lying"
I've never seen anyone mock someone for lying by flailing their hands. Anyway, we don't usually mock someone for lying. We might criticize or call them out, but mockery isn't the usual response to lying.
9
@Patty-There is a video of the incident. This is CNN's coverage.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with...
Contrary to another comment, the reporter does not keep his hands by his sides. Trump's statement, "You've got to see this guy." is his intro to his impersonation. Yes, Trump waves his hands around a lot, but not the same way he did to make fun of a disabled man.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with...
Contrary to another comment, the reporter does not keep his hands by his sides. Trump's statement, "You've got to see this guy." is his intro to his impersonation. Yes, Trump waves his hands around a lot, but not the same way he did to make fun of a disabled man.
2
Seems pretty simple to me. DrumpleThinSkin lies must be called out clearly and unequivocally every time he utters them. Preferably in plain and simple English so that even a first grader would understand. What is so difficult to write: DJT lied when he said......[bla, bla, bla] because he [yada, yada, yada].
See, not to difficult, right?
See, not to difficult, right?
9
This is exactly what Mr. Trump wants: The Media to be too cautious to report the truth. Watching PBS it is almost palatable the hesitance of seasoned reporters. They hold back. They moderate. They give obvious untruths spoken by Trump equal play to truths spoken by experts. It is yet another frightening thing for the nation to watch, the withdrawal of our news media in reporting the truth.
6
The news media, including the New York Times, must start calling his questionable stories what they are. And they are lies. If his statements are not fact based i.e. Carrier, Chrysler, a disabled reporter he met many times, etc. it should be stated he is being untruthful. He is not mis-speaking, it is a not a he said/she said situation, it is not his opinion, he is not exaggerating, he is lying. Quit letting him get away with being a liar.
7
I'm afraid we're in for more lame excuses of the "we should have done this or that" variety from the media, who are already showing signs of amnesia or just willful ignorance of the vile, divisive, hateful campaign Donald Trump waged to win the presidency.
But we should never, ever forget. We Americans have been at war with each other ever since Vietnam and the conservative reactionary Reagan 80s, and Trump's campaign has made that war so much more virulent and, I'm afraid, potentially violent.
Do not forget. Do not forgive. Meryl Streep was right when she said we all need to help the media find the courage to do their job. The truth has always been the disinfectant that scours the perfidy of politics, and now more than ever it must be told.
But we should never, ever forget. We Americans have been at war with each other ever since Vietnam and the conservative reactionary Reagan 80s, and Trump's campaign has made that war so much more virulent and, I'm afraid, potentially violent.
Do not forget. Do not forgive. Meryl Streep was right when she said we all need to help the media find the courage to do their job. The truth has always been the disinfectant that scours the perfidy of politics, and now more than ever it must be told.
5
Let me start by saying something that shouldn't matter - I despise Trump. I think he is an immature liar who is unqualified and undeserving of the Presidency. That said, I think that we who criticize him must always be accurate and fair in our criticisms. Which leads me to the following -- How can the Times publish an opinion like this that is premised on an alleged fact - that Trump mocked Mr. Kovaleski - without any mention of the objective evidence that appears to contradict the alleged fact?
When I first saw the video of Trump speaking about the reporter, I, too, concluded immediately that he was mocking him for his disability. I then repeated this conclusion to others. Only later did I see articles from other sources questioning whether he was mocking the reporter or using mannerisms that he has used in other contexts to mimic people who were frustrated or exasperated. These other articles provide video evidence that seems to corroborate Trump's position. For example, see http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/313311-meryl-streeps-promoti....
Again, I despise Trump. But we - and especially the Times - must be fair. If we are not, we play right into Trump's and his supporters' hands, who are just itching to find reasons to dismiss us.
When I first saw the video of Trump speaking about the reporter, I, too, concluded immediately that he was mocking him for his disability. I then repeated this conclusion to others. Only later did I see articles from other sources questioning whether he was mocking the reporter or using mannerisms that he has used in other contexts to mimic people who were frustrated or exasperated. These other articles provide video evidence that seems to corroborate Trump's position. For example, see http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/313311-meryl-streeps-promoti....
Again, I despise Trump. But we - and especially the Times - must be fair. If we are not, we play right into Trump's and his supporters' hands, who are just itching to find reasons to dismiss us.
Hey Steve,
Thanks for posting that article because, I've been curious how people could hold the belief that he wasn't mocking the reporter.
However, that article didn't clear up my confusion. Not sure if you watched the videos or just read the article and took Concha at his word, but the video "evidence" Concha presented didn't actually support his premise. If you watch the videos that are supposed to support the article, Trump's gestures can only generously be described as similar movements to the initial video. His movements in that first video are vastly more exaggerated, lengthy, and insulting.
In fact these stark differences between the movements in the videos actually do more to prove that he was intentionally insulting the reporter, since he clearly could've been more restrained and controlled as he was in the other videos, but he chose not to for some reason. We can only presume that reason but given his usual behavior it's highly likely it was a) for his audience's amusement, b) for his own amusement, c) to disparage the reporter, or d) any combination of the above.
I agree that more than ever we need to be fair and careful in reporting but upon reviewing the evidence by Concha and other websites, this is definitely not a case of fake news. However if Trump and his supporters keep saying loudly that it is, and reporters keep accepting that as a fact, then we're starting to walk a dangerous propaganda line.
Thanks for posting that article because, I've been curious how people could hold the belief that he wasn't mocking the reporter.
However, that article didn't clear up my confusion. Not sure if you watched the videos or just read the article and took Concha at his word, but the video "evidence" Concha presented didn't actually support his premise. If you watch the videos that are supposed to support the article, Trump's gestures can only generously be described as similar movements to the initial video. His movements in that first video are vastly more exaggerated, lengthy, and insulting.
In fact these stark differences between the movements in the videos actually do more to prove that he was intentionally insulting the reporter, since he clearly could've been more restrained and controlled as he was in the other videos, but he chose not to for some reason. We can only presume that reason but given his usual behavior it's highly likely it was a) for his audience's amusement, b) for his own amusement, c) to disparage the reporter, or d) any combination of the above.
I agree that more than ever we need to be fair and careful in reporting but upon reviewing the evidence by Concha and other websites, this is definitely not a case of fake news. However if Trump and his supporters keep saying loudly that it is, and reporters keep accepting that as a fact, then we're starting to walk a dangerous propaganda line.
3
I did watch the videos. And then just watched them again. I think it's debatable whether the movements are different enough to be material - particularly the Cruz video and particularly if you watch a video of the reporter being interviewed, which shows that the reporter neither waves his arm when he speaks nor stutters in any way.
But even if you reach a different conclusion on this question, wouldn't you at least agree that the video evidence can be reasonably interpreted both ways? If so, my point remains - we shouldn't be stating only one side as indisputable fact, which is what Ms. Streep and the Times have done.
More broadly - there are so many things for which we can criticize Trump and so many instances of his having lied about objectively verifiable facts, why choose this particular battle?
But even if you reach a different conclusion on this question, wouldn't you at least agree that the video evidence can be reasonably interpreted both ways? If so, my point remains - we shouldn't be stating only one side as indisputable fact, which is what Ms. Streep and the Times have done.
More broadly - there are so many things for which we can criticize Trump and so many instances of his having lied about objectively verifiable facts, why choose this particular battle?
This explains a few things about the public editor's own approach. She tells us the response was "candid and undefensive" but referring to "under deadline pressure" and "after midnight" is a textbook example of being "defensive."
5
Funny, innit? The Times, for years, has not embraced the fundamental premises of journalism. For years, the Times has used the soft, squishy mealy-mouth words of "appears, seems, unclear, etc." Go on. Look back through the archives. Whenever the Times speaks now, it sounds like PR. A bunch of mush shoved around on a plate. And don't forget the trigger warnings, because, you know, the readers are so delicate, and they must be pwotected fwom the weal world whenever possible.
And now, the Times is reaping what it has sown. No one trusts you implicitly any more because you can't be trusted implicitly any more. You can't be trusted because you keep getting fooled. The Iraq War. Jayson Blair. The whole Hillary Clinton support system you assembled. These disgusting articles about high-six and low-seven figure apartments and condos that obscenely rich people "struggle" to decide upon--oh, those poor, poor well-offs. Shall I send them the $200 I still have left in my checking account?
Welcome to the world you helped birth, New York Times. You're as much to blame as all the corporate 1%ers.
Yes. You are.
And now, the Times is reaping what it has sown. No one trusts you implicitly any more because you can't be trusted implicitly any more. You can't be trusted because you keep getting fooled. The Iraq War. Jayson Blair. The whole Hillary Clinton support system you assembled. These disgusting articles about high-six and low-seven figure apartments and condos that obscenely rich people "struggle" to decide upon--oh, those poor, poor well-offs. Shall I send them the $200 I still have left in my checking account?
Welcome to the world you helped birth, New York Times. You're as much to blame as all the corporate 1%ers.
Yes. You are.
At some point we're going to cross a line. Many people think we already have. On one side, there's the normal, time-honored convention that newsmakers are quoted or paraphased, identified, and placed in context such as "...the mayor, speaking underwater during flood relief efforts, said..." and so on.
On the other side, a objective publication identifies the newsmaker by citing his record. "The mayor, partner in a business that sells bad whiskey to orphans..." We are at the point where every reference to this guy should carry a prominent disclaimer that much of what he says is false, often immediately, in what reasonable people describe as 'lies.'"
On the other side, a objective publication identifies the newsmaker by citing his record. "The mayor, partner in a business that sells bad whiskey to orphans..." We are at the point where every reference to this guy should carry a prominent disclaimer that much of what he says is false, often immediately, in what reasonable people describe as 'lies.'"
3
Don’t worry NYT. We gave up on ANYONE in the media daring to contradict or call Trump out for his lies a LONG time ago.
For 18 months you presented this buffoon as a serious candidate and relayed every false word on Mrs. Clinton’s emails as if there was ANYTHING equivalent about discriminating against minorities in housing and getting fined HERE IN NY and Mrs. Clinton’s private servers.
No you just kept up the 5 ring circus to sell papers. You never fail to disappoint. We saw that in your interview with Trump--NO ONE followed up on one of his lies.
Geez--the NYT used to mean something--now it’s as bad as Buzzfeed or Gawker.
For 18 months you presented this buffoon as a serious candidate and relayed every false word on Mrs. Clinton’s emails as if there was ANYTHING equivalent about discriminating against minorities in housing and getting fined HERE IN NY and Mrs. Clinton’s private servers.
No you just kept up the 5 ring circus to sell papers. You never fail to disappoint. We saw that in your interview with Trump--NO ONE followed up on one of his lies.
Geez--the NYT used to mean something--now it’s as bad as Buzzfeed or Gawker.
4
I don't know Trump's intentions when he mocked the reporter. Given that he has mocked many others in similar ways, and given that Trump usually verbalizes his insults -- Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hillary -- I think this is a matter of interpretation. He was certainly making fun of him -- but he says nothing about his disability nor do his actions in any way mimic Kovaleski's disabilities as I understand them.
Trump made fun of him because he disagreed with Trump about how many Muslims in NJ were celebrating after 9/11, not because he was disabled. And being disabled doesn't exempt a reporter from being criticized by someone he has publicly disagreed with.
We can argue all day long about Trump's intentions -- whether he was in fact trying to imitate Kovaleski's physical impairment -- or if he was trying to mimic a reporter who Trump claims is nervous because he can't remember the details of an article he wrote. But citing the Wash Post's f Pinocchio's is disingenuous, as WaPo is bent at least as far left as the NYTs.
Now, if you want attmpet to resolve the issue -- you look at multiple speeches Trump has made where he has made fun of people. What kind of gestures does he make? What verbalizations? The interpretation of ambiguous movements by Trump is more designed to fit a political narrative than anything else. And proving motivation is difficult. Trump makes fun of people, but any evidence he's made fun of the disabled before or since?
Trump made fun of him because he disagreed with Trump about how many Muslims in NJ were celebrating after 9/11, not because he was disabled. And being disabled doesn't exempt a reporter from being criticized by someone he has publicly disagreed with.
We can argue all day long about Trump's intentions -- whether he was in fact trying to imitate Kovaleski's physical impairment -- or if he was trying to mimic a reporter who Trump claims is nervous because he can't remember the details of an article he wrote. But citing the Wash Post's f Pinocchio's is disingenuous, as WaPo is bent at least as far left as the NYTs.
Now, if you want attmpet to resolve the issue -- you look at multiple speeches Trump has made where he has made fun of people. What kind of gestures does he make? What verbalizations? The interpretation of ambiguous movements by Trump is more designed to fit a political narrative than anything else. And proving motivation is difficult. Trump makes fun of people, but any evidence he's made fun of the disabled before or since?
So your basic argument is that he makes fun of lots of people? Nice.
1
We've entered a challenging era for media. Respected institutions, not wanting to be painted as left-leaning or right-leaning, attempt to take a middle ground approach, to black and white issues. Unfortunately, when an issue is black and white, and your position is both black and white, you lose credibility.
Trump has verbally mocked many reporters in his news conferences and speeches - but he seems to of only physically mocked one. The focus needs to be on this. Stop worrying about losing your conservative or liberal readers (or your future revenues) and report facts.
Trump has verbally mocked many reporters in his news conferences and speeches - but he seems to of only physically mocked one. The focus needs to be on this. Stop worrying about losing your conservative or liberal readers (or your future revenues) and report facts.
2
We have enough gutless cowards in the news media without the Times joining the throng.
5
I'm surprised you object to this, Ms. Spayd. In the past, you have demanded that reporters be "fair and balanced" and treat every claim with false equivalency. In fact, your attacks on reporters who dared to call out the blatant lies of the Trump campaign and the propaganda effort against Hillary Clinton, and your defense of the reporters who jumped on the "Hillary is crooked and a criminal" bandwagon did a great deal to help Mr. Trump get elected.
I suppose you are having second thoughts now and it's too late. When history is written, your many columns as public editor during the campaign in which you attacked any truthful columns about Trump and defended the most blatant innuendo implying Hillary Clinton's massive "criminal actions" will be looked at as a case study in enabling a fascist takeover. When the press is co opted to report the lies the way you insisted the NY Times report them during the campaign, a pathological liar wins.
And no doubt Danielle Mattoon was also reacting to your months of fall attacks on reporters there who dared to question the many falsehoods of Trump. Nice you finally seem to have come to your senses, but it is too little too late. History will remember how much people like you turned our press into lapdogs for Putin's propaganda and got Trump elected.
I suppose you are having second thoughts now and it's too late. When history is written, your many columns as public editor during the campaign in which you attacked any truthful columns about Trump and defended the most blatant innuendo implying Hillary Clinton's massive "criminal actions" will be looked at as a case study in enabling a fascist takeover. When the press is co opted to report the lies the way you insisted the NY Times report them during the campaign, a pathological liar wins.
And no doubt Danielle Mattoon was also reacting to your months of fall attacks on reporters there who dared to question the many falsehoods of Trump. Nice you finally seem to have come to your senses, but it is too little too late. History will remember how much people like you turned our press into lapdogs for Putin's propaganda and got Trump elected.
2
Don't call it a lie. Call him a liar. Brand him a liar the same way he branded his failing businesses.
2
Groucho Marx had it about right when he famously said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?".
1
The passive reaction of the press to Trump is now simply absurd. Of his statements fact checked by PolitiFact, 69% were mostly false or worse. As Bloomberg said, this is a con man.
The cutesy labels of "Pants on Fire" and "Pinnochios" soften what's going on here. A very sick guy who can be counted on to distort, lie, and manipulate for his own benefit is being given codes to launch nuclear war next week.
If this isn't an emergency, what is. Right-wing information warfare to contemptuously label this reality as "panic" by "snowflakes" and "sore losers" to hid the danger is truly insane.
The Times, if it's worth anything, needs report on this without euphemism or false equivalence.
The cutesy labels of "Pants on Fire" and "Pinnochios" soften what's going on here. A very sick guy who can be counted on to distort, lie, and manipulate for his own benefit is being given codes to launch nuclear war next week.
If this isn't an emergency, what is. Right-wing information warfare to contemptuously label this reality as "panic" by "snowflakes" and "sore losers" to hid the danger is truly insane.
The Times, if it's worth anything, needs report on this without euphemism or false equivalence.
6
This goes well beyond con man, who's trying to put one over. This guy has embarks on a focused, sustained, assault on the whole idea of truth, breaking us down so that we too, just like so many American voters, can't tell and don't care about the difference any more.
What's important is not to just never 'normalize' this. There must be consequences to it as well, and a strategy to let Americans know how often and flagrant the lying is and how it hurts real people, not just the pointy-headed Beltway types they want to see hurt because they are 'the system.'
What's important is not to just never 'normalize' this. There must be consequences to it as well, and a strategy to let Americans know how often and flagrant the lying is and how it hurts real people, not just the pointy-headed Beltway types they want to see hurt because they are 'the system.'
3
Agreed. Punishing him and his enablers is the only way to make them stop. But how to do that? The only thing Trump seems really to care about is obsequious attention and familial enrichment.
He's happy to sign whatever the right-wing Congress wants. And Congress is happy to have him distract attention from them.
He's happy to sign whatever the right-wing Congress wants. And Congress is happy to have him distract attention from them.
2
"The story was written under deadline pressure after midnight and we focused squarely on the news event at hand." Her is my suggestion. Let one of the sports department beat writers cover Mr. Trump. These journalists are skilled at writing "...under deadline pressure" and accurately reporting the final score.
4
Kovaleski doesn't wave his hands around idiotically, as Trump did and as Trump does to mock just about anyone. So while it's clear Trump was mocking Kovaleski, it's not as clear that he was mocking his disability. It's easy to create gotcha moments with a man as crass as Trump, but to overstate the case gives aid and comfort to the so-called deplorables.
Short timelines are not an excuse. If you haven't got the facts nailed down wait until you do. This reader would rather you get it right, rather than get it first. This case, however, is instructive of how a lie repeated ad nauseum otherwise known as propaganda can gain a footing even among those who should and do know better. Take this instance as a cautionary lesson for the next four years.
40
Really excellent point well stated. Every NYT reporter should print out your comment and hang it on his/ her computer. And then program that computer to send this comment as a message with an " are you sure" before submitting a story for publication.
4
I agree completely, John.
1
"The story was written under deadline pressure after midnight....." Danielle Mattoon, Culture Editor.
"Surely, you jest." Maynard G. Krebs
"Surely, you jest." Maynard G. Krebs
26
That excuse has long outived its credibility.
How often are we going xpected to swallow it?
How often are we going xpected to swallow it?
1
Indeed. The protestations are so wildly off-base conclusions seem obvious but not in the hands of this cabal of wide-eyed defenders. This troupe l'oeil technique leaves us shaking our head, rubbing our eyes. Look for the pattern, it is that which is telling. Smoke and mirrors. Truth as a casualty.
6
I believe we are in a war of attrition. The public just cannot keep up with all the shocking things that are going on. How many 'comments' can we make. In the end, it means nothing. He is going to be president, and there is nothing you can do about it. Should we comment on Jared Kushner? Should we comment on the Congressional hearings where Sessions virtually said that his biblical truth is the truth and people who do not believe will not be allowed in the Justice Department? Should we comment on Kennedy Jr. being appointed to head the vaccine panel? This is Trump's game plan. It is just too much. The comments, unfortunately, will peter out. Sad to say, but people have only so much time and energy. The New York Times should print the editor's response on Page 1! We should not have to read all these additional appendixes to find out the real facts.
19
There are numerous accounts and video examples debunking this comment by Trump. Setting aside his unfortunate extemporaneous exaggerations, it is well documented in other places that he has often mocked others and even himself with similar voice and hand gestures, even in that same presentation, and when knocking Ted Cruz. I and many others agree with his response to NYT phone call. As far as exaggeration or lying, many times in the campaign, in print and verbal account, when reporters and others Trashed Trump in their litany of lists, they would include this singular questionable instance as he "mocks people with disabilities", in the plural form. I find that repeated "fact" Fake, a Lie even...
3
Since the beginning of Trump's presidential campaign, I have been in the forefront of those who make a point of citing his record of lies and contradictions, and holding the media accountable for failing to do so. But let me play devil's advocate on this issue. I believe there are videos of Trump using the same body language when lambasting other reporters for allegedly backtracking on their reporting. There is evidence that this is his universal way of dealing with supposedly contrite reporters. Any comments?
2
Indeed, I'll comment. Trump's face is usually contorted in grotesque ways, but generally he was understood, considering the circumstances and Trump's response to others, to be mocking a reporter's disability.--and in his Trump's head, a mentally disabled person. I think to confuse it with his usual grimaces toward "contrite" reporters is restricted to your singular interpretation.
3
Please. I’ve heard this gobbledy-gook for 48 hrs.
Can you give us specific websites that show this? Because this is the ONLY video I’ve seen and I subscribe to 8 newspapers and magazines (online and print.)
Can you give us specific websites that show this? Because this is the ONLY video I’ve seen and I subscribe to 8 newspapers and magazines (online and print.)
4
Yes, I have a comment. He lied about even knowing this reporter despite the year the guy worked on Daily News stories. He lied that he didn't know his name. And whether or not he does these mocking gestures to others is immaterial. He will be the president of the United States and we all deserve better. This man Trump is the biggest fraud of all and his behavior toward women, toward Latinos, toward almost anyone who doesn't buy his "lockeroom" behavior of mockery (yes at disabled people) and outright mysogeny, is somehow wrong. George Orwell couldn't have written in better.
3
Does the NYT read The Public Editor? I'm confused how the NYT could screwup yet again. Next thing you know they will be writing about WMDs in Iraq.
Seriously, when the media institutions of which the NYT fails again, as you pointed out, where is the NYT editorial board response?
Seriously, when the media institutions of which the NYT fails again, as you pointed out, where is the NYT editorial board response?
1
The Editorial Board has no control over the day-to-day operation of the Times' newsroom. That is the province of Executive Editor Baquet and his other "masthead" editors.
Where I fault the Editorial Board for their silence is in not taking on the recurring failures of the Times to live up to the standards that they themselves have set and continually make the same sort of errors over-and-over again.
Where I fault the Editorial Board for their silence is in not taking on the recurring failures of the Times to live up to the standards that they themselves have set and continually make the same sort of errors over-and-over again.
1
As usual, Ms Spayd demonstrates that she only addresses concerns from the left. Of all of the problems with the NYT, it is laughable that concern about not being tough enough on Trump is worthy of consideration.
Ms Spayd claimed she was going to do a column about the lack of political diversity among the NYT staff. I'll start holding my breath now.
Ms Spayd claimed she was going to do a column about the lack of political diversity among the NYT staff. I'll start holding my breath now.
What is THIS about? Are you taking a page from Trump and denying this happened by trying to obfuscate it? And you're going to hold your breath until she does what you want?
1
Shame on the Culture Desk editor for the slip in fact checking. The incident is well known and one would expect an editor to already know the context of the original incident. I agree with this writer: It IS a slippery slope and if great care is not taken to check Trump at every turn, then more readers and reporters are dragged into his broad campaign of misinformation and acceptance of his lies.
9
I would like the Times to investigate further and tell us who wrote Ms. Streep's speech. The words did not appear magically, nor were they necessary. The room was as much an echo chamber as the Times' newsroom.
1
There is certainly an hypocrisy or a million lurking the expanding "investigations" of every utterance of our President-Elect when they have spent the past eight years gobbling up everything that got shoveled out of the Oval Office and agency working under Barack Obama.
I'm no fan of the "fair and balanced" mantra, but neither am I a fan the selective natures of the "journalists" in giving government a pass just because they believe in its malarkey.
It is this bias and reticence to use the powers of the Fourth Estate that has gotten the Fourth Estate into the position it finds itself as regards credibility.
I'm no fan of the "fair and balanced" mantra, but neither am I a fan the selective natures of the "journalists" in giving government a pass just because they believe in its malarkey.
It is this bias and reticence to use the powers of the Fourth Estate that has gotten the Fourth Estate into the position it finds itself as regards credibility.
Yes, because when it comes to someone criticizing our great leader, let's not focus on whether or not the great leader did something incredibly ugly and blatantly lied about it to the American people and continued to lie about it over and over again. And not just in this instance, but in so many news reports like Obama being born in Kenya and then denying he had ever said that.
Let's ignore the fact that this man is a pathological liar and attack anyone who dares to mention that the emperor had no clothes.
I'm quite sure that is how they do it in Russia, Robert Sawyer.
Let's ignore the fact that this man is a pathological liar and attack anyone who dares to mention that the emperor had no clothes.
I'm quite sure that is how they do it in Russia, Robert Sawyer.
2
@Robert
Meryl Streep is a markedly intelligent woman AND a three time Academy Award winning actress.
She doesn’t need anyone to write her speeches!
Meryl Streep is a markedly intelligent woman AND a three time Academy Award winning actress.
She doesn’t need anyone to write her speeches!
2
The New York Times must be alert to calling Trump's lies as the lies that they are. If they cannot even call out such a well-documented and easy one such as this, I am very worried and disappointed.
NYTimes, we are relying on you.
NYTimes, we are relying on you.
7
Given the near monolithic, doctrinaire leftism and unbridled narcissism of the Hollywood "elite", no wonder that an evening ostensibly dedicated to "recognize outstanding achievements by conferring annual Awards of Merit..." was transformed into a multiple course dinner featuring Donald Trump in every item on the menu. Of course, Ms. Streep, et al. are entitled to their views and are free to disseminate them as they see fit to a captive audience but they're likely oblivious that most viewers could care less what an actor thinks about topics far removed from their craft.
3
What drivel. Trump's serial lying, his personal attacks on people from John McCain to Hillary to a judge of Mexican origin, his demeaning of minorities, his bragging about sexually assaulting women and his calling them bimbos, and his apparent mocking of a handicapped person--all this made Trump's character, not policies, the centerpiece of his campaign. Any American, anytime, anywhere, has the right to speak out against electing a proven cretin President of the United States. A sense of common human decency, not political, expertise, is all they need.
Meryl Streep has that in abundance.
Meryl Streep has that in abundance.
5
@Howard
This “elitist thing” has been brought up over and over--Viola Davis said it best.
What do you mean by “Hollywood elites?” Ms. Davis’ father was a janitor. Many of these folks came from desperately poor backgrounds but also had the talent to act, sing, dance, etc. Bruno Mars (You can google him) is a top singer and performer, yet lived homeless in a closed tourist spot in my home city of Honolulu for years.
YOU are the one calling them elites. I just see folks with different skill sets. I happen to be great at treating trauma patients...am I elitist for having talent I honed with practice and dedication? Heck no. Same with actors.
Get over yourself!
This “elitist thing” has been brought up over and over--Viola Davis said it best.
What do you mean by “Hollywood elites?” Ms. Davis’ father was a janitor. Many of these folks came from desperately poor backgrounds but also had the talent to act, sing, dance, etc. Bruno Mars (You can google him) is a top singer and performer, yet lived homeless in a closed tourist spot in my home city of Honolulu for years.
YOU are the one calling them elites. I just see folks with different skill sets. I happen to be great at treating trauma patients...am I elitist for having talent I honed with practice and dedication? Heck no. Same with actors.
Get over yourself!
4
Times, you MUST rise to the occasion here. This is not "politics as usual." STAY ON THIS and his EVERY MOVE with vigor. We are relying on you.
8
The good news is that there was an actual apology from Danielle Mattoon.
The bad news is that it was necessary, and how little respect the Times showed its colleague, Serge Kovalesky.
The original piece should have shown the video that completely demonstrates Trump's lie.
The bad news is that it was necessary, and how little respect the Times showed its colleague, Serge Kovalesky.
The original piece should have shown the video that completely demonstrates Trump's lie.
10
Here we go again.
The Hollywood left turns what is ostensibly an award show into a political convention against Donald Trump, featuring most prominently Meryl Streep. Trump swallows the bait. The New York Times reports on the Streep/Trump to-do but not as vehemently and strenuously anti-Trump as complainers to the Public Editor would have it. The Public Editor takes up their cudgels and the Times culture editor does a tearful mea culpa.
Anyone who doesn’t know by now that Donald Trump is a blatant liar, that he says A today, then Not-A tomorrow, that he makes up events, explanations and so-called contexts, is living on another planet. Meryl Streep, who was active for Hillary Clinton, used her Golden Globes award as a forum for a political diatribe against Donald Trump, he called her on it, as is his wont, and he misstated, again as is his wont, as could be expected, and which we all know. We don’t need a four page feature article on the Times front page showing Donald Trump for the liar he was on the Kovaleski contretemps for this to be the story. I could just as well insist on the Times reporting doing four pages on Meryl Streep’s Democrat party activism as part of the Golden Globes story. Throw “Meryl Streep Democrat Activist” into Google and see all the entries. How about getting a tearful mea culpa from the culture editor on that.
Yeah. Right.
The Hollywood left turns what is ostensibly an award show into a political convention against Donald Trump, featuring most prominently Meryl Streep. Trump swallows the bait. The New York Times reports on the Streep/Trump to-do but not as vehemently and strenuously anti-Trump as complainers to the Public Editor would have it. The Public Editor takes up their cudgels and the Times culture editor does a tearful mea culpa.
Anyone who doesn’t know by now that Donald Trump is a blatant liar, that he says A today, then Not-A tomorrow, that he makes up events, explanations and so-called contexts, is living on another planet. Meryl Streep, who was active for Hillary Clinton, used her Golden Globes award as a forum for a political diatribe against Donald Trump, he called her on it, as is his wont, and he misstated, again as is his wont, as could be expected, and which we all know. We don’t need a four page feature article on the Times front page showing Donald Trump for the liar he was on the Kovaleski contretemps for this to be the story. I could just as well insist on the Times reporting doing four pages on Meryl Streep’s Democrat party activism as part of the Golden Globes story. Throw “Meryl Streep Democrat Activist” into Google and see all the entries. How about getting a tearful mea culpa from the culture editor on that.
Yeah. Right.
The Times has been much too soft on Trump time and again. Use of "alleged" and "appeared to" may be appropriate for discussing a matter that will be adjudicated. But in this case Trump is just flat out lying. You need to say so.
10
Call a lie what it is. It's not a non-truth. It's not an opinion. It's a lie. Period.
Calling his lies anything but what they are is an insult to everyone who reads the NY Times and frankly, it damages your reputation.
Calling his lies anything but what they are is an insult to everyone who reads the NY Times and frankly, it damages your reputation.
10
Any chance the media, including the NYT, could simply ignore the daily stream of inanities spouted by this unpleasant individual? We've got ad blockers; why not a Trump blocker? I'd pay extra for a Trump-free NYT.
4
Reading of trump's antics is tiring, but we have to stay on this. No more bubble for me, and no bubble for you either.
2
It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. They said they couldn't ignore him because he was running for president. Of course, that helped him get elected president, and now they say they can't ignore him because he's about to be president.
Honestly that's the sorriest piece of all of this. If Trump is impeached, resigns, ends up in prison (my prediction), or dies - no matter, he's going to be in our faces bigly for many years to come. One would have to leave the planet to get away from it.
Honestly that's the sorriest piece of all of this. If Trump is impeached, resigns, ends up in prison (my prediction), or dies - no matter, he's going to be in our faces bigly for many years to come. One would have to leave the planet to get away from it.
This kind of ball dropping by journalists significantly contributed to the "victory" of the Great Orange Pretender. It MUST stop. Sadly, it continues, as you point out, across many media organizations. It's as if journalists have forgotten what their jobs are. Imagine if the Spotlight reporters had simply passed on statements made by the Catholic Church, without questioning, digging, providing context, uncovering the sordid facts of the matter. The Times has done some impressive investigative reporting, too, as have the Post and others. But news organizations can't do a good job only some of the time, or even most of the time. They have a responsibility to their readers and the public to do their best ALL of the time. So, when Kellyanne Conway plays verbal jujitsu on, well, any issue, because she does this with every lie she's confronted with, she needs to be held to account. "No, Ms. Conway, there's no question about what your boss was doing before that crowd, and we, the media, will not allow you to disseminate your alternative reality to our readers." Or, when anyone in the DJT camp suggests he has a mandate, it's incumbent on the media organization to refute that with the facts - those pesky things this group of yahoos ignores. "You lost the popular vote 'bigly' and you eked out an electoral college win with razor thin margins in three states. How, sir (or madam) do you call that a mandate? And did you know that your electoral college margin was the 12th thinnest ever?"
12
I must say that I was shocked that the New York Times covered this exchange without questioning the ethics of a president-elect -- or any government official for that matter -- impugning the comments of a private citizen. Must we accept this as part of the horrendous 'new normal' that has been inflicted up on us? I expect more from the Times.
6
In defense of the Times and other (conventional) media, we've never seen anyone like DT in a presidential campaign or ready to assume high office, at least in the last 50 years. As is well documented, Trump not only lies far more frequently than any previous national politician with a substantial following, his lies are more flagrant--- in many cases more incredible than the lies told by young children--- and they are repeated despite and after numerous corrections. It is astounding for all of us to watch him deny things he's said that are recorded.
Given this unprecedented assault on truth, the media itself is debating how best to address this problem. When is it appropriate to use words like "lie," "untruth," or "falsehood" in a news story about Trump? Is there a way for reporters to distinguish between an error or a deliberate falsehood in what Trump says? Should the word "lie" be reserved for only the most egregious falsehoods lest its impact become diminished?
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/the-debate-over-trump-lies-...
Given this unprecedented assault on truth, the media itself is debating how best to address this problem. When is it appropriate to use words like "lie," "untruth," or "falsehood" in a news story about Trump? Is there a way for reporters to distinguish between an error or a deliberate falsehood in what Trump says? Should the word "lie" be reserved for only the most egregious falsehoods lest its impact become diminished?
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/the-debate-over-trump-lies-...
3
I am appalled that a news outlet with the reputation of the NYT's keep repeating Trump's tweets as NEWS! Please stop it. No one else would be allowed to do this. He lies! Stop putting it forth as the truth.
7
Even you, Public Editor, fall into the trap you spotlight by referring to what Trump said as his "misstatements." These aren't slips of the tongue. Trump tells calculated, intentional lies.
9
Have you a direct line to Trump's mind, Mr. Verner?
Tell me honestly that Barack Obama doesn't tell intentional lies, and then bases the selling of major legislation and international agreements on them.
See: Obamacare, Iranian Nuclear Treaty, Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc.
When you've put down your tinfoil hat and foam-rubber light saber, people might be willing to afford your views some reasoned attention.
Tell me honestly that Barack Obama doesn't tell intentional lies, and then bases the selling of major legislation and international agreements on them.
See: Obamacare, Iranian Nuclear Treaty, Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc.
When you've put down your tinfoil hat and foam-rubber light saber, people might be willing to afford your views some reasoned attention.
Sadly I am distancing myself from a friend of 40 years who feels that Meryl Streep was out of line and disrespectful towards the President Elect during her Golden Globe speech. My friend is surprisingly not bothered by the video of Trump mimicking a disabled reporter. How can anyone, no matter their political leanings, and certainly my friend with her worn bible, not be bothered by clear images of bullying? In my lifetime there have been Presidents that I have disagreed with, but never one so callous, who gleefully skewers all who are not marching lock step to his vision. There are many battles to choose from but all of us must stand up against bullying.
12
Meryl Streep WAS out of line to use her entertainment platform for political speech.
And, since I won't watch those phony "awards" programs, I could care less about what she actually said.
And, since I won't watch those phony "awards" programs, I could care less about what she actually said.
1
I found this Public Editor column in Top News only an hour ago. It has now disappeared, so I had to search for it. THIS SUBJECT IS IMPORTANT - why hide it?
7
If a person is schizophrenic and makes what his addled brain assures him is a factual statement, then under the law he is not a liar. Every state in the union states that a person with a long-standing mental disorder that prevents him from knowing right from wrong is NGRI - not guilty by reason of insanity.
It is past time for the ACLU, or a similar body, to call for a hearing on the mental condition of Donnie. If he's adjudicated as insane, he's not a liar, but he does pose a danger to himself or others, and has to be committed. If he's adjudicated sane, then it's fair to call him a liar. And he can remain at large, serving as our President.
It can't be both.
It is past time for the ACLU, or a similar body, to call for a hearing on the mental condition of Donnie. If he's adjudicated as insane, he's not a liar, but he does pose a danger to himself or others, and has to be committed. If he's adjudicated sane, then it's fair to call him a liar. And he can remain at large, serving as our President.
It can't be both.
15
We all have seen this segment so many times that how he can deny his actions when they are on tape is beyond me (yes, I know 'I did not have sex with this woman'). No matter how he denies, it's there.
6
It is mockery, plain and simple, no matter the sophistication of the spin.
Mockery of any kind, directed at individuals, because of a physical and or mental disability, is the most heartbreaking, and heartless thing to do, and to see it occurring is awful.
The dearth of comments tells me something very disturbing as well, which is that many prefer to remain silent, in effect hiding, and in some manner condoning this terribly disturbing act.
Something is wrong, terribly wrong in our nation; we used to be a stand-up, caring, empathetic people, highly regarded, and respected, by the vast majority of nations,
I feel a great sense of loss, at the fact we meander along, willfully allowing the annihilation of the little morality we have left.
Mockery of any kind, directed at individuals, because of a physical and or mental disability, is the most heartbreaking, and heartless thing to do, and to see it occurring is awful.
The dearth of comments tells me something very disturbing as well, which is that many prefer to remain silent, in effect hiding, and in some manner condoning this terribly disturbing act.
Something is wrong, terribly wrong in our nation; we used to be a stand-up, caring, empathetic people, highly regarded, and respected, by the vast majority of nations,
I feel a great sense of loss, at the fact we meander along, willfully allowing the annihilation of the little morality we have left.
22
It is disgraceful that the NYT failed to call it mockery, clear and simple.
3
I would agree with you that the dearth of comments is surprising. I believe we are in a war of attrition. The public just cannot keep up with all the shocking things that are going on. How many 'comments' can we make. In the end, it means nothing. He is going to be president, and there is nothing you can do about it. Should we comment on Jared Kushner? Should we comment on the Congressional hearings where Sessions virtually said that his biblical truth is the truth and people who do believe will not be allowed in the Justice Department? Should we comment on Kennedy Jr. being appointed to head the vaccine panel? This is Trump's game plan. It is just too much. The comments, unfortunately, will peter out. Sad to say, but people have only so much time and energy. The New York Times should print the editor's response on Page 1! We should not have to read all these additional appendixes to find out the real facts.
Peter Thiel cleared this up months back. The media (mainly you NYT) he said, "never takes Trump seriously, but it always takes him literally.". If only every reporter, disabled or otherwise, would read this one line 10 times daily, five time at sunrise and five at bedtime, we paying readers wouldn't have to parse through the reporting on a daily basis trying to make sense of what Trump really means.
Pass this to your reporters and eds please. Note, they must read facing the Trump Tower otherwise it won't work. Thank you.
Pass this to your reporters and eds please. Note, they must read facing the Trump Tower otherwise it won't work. Thank you.
8
Bravo Public editor! Bad form, NYTs! Why are you giving "the Donald" a pass here on his videotaped mockery? Are you afraid he won't take your phone calls any more? Are you afraid of a lawsuit? I'd rather not read your interview with him if you are unwilling to stick to the facts.
13
This comment is not about the article, but about the ad that precedes the clip of Trump clearly mocking the reporter. Why is the New York Times selling ads to a company, Urban Carry Holsters, that promotes concealed carry gun holsters? Are there no standards or guidelines regarding who can advertise in the Times? Or is the Times really ok with promoting a company that produces an ad showing, in the part of the ad that I viewed, white men drawing guns concealed in these holsters that seem to be tucked under their waistbands?
11
Starting January 20th the Trump lies become state sponsored propaganda.
10
Ya know, there was a time when the NYT was not so craven. Since the Right will pay no attention to anything printed in the NYT, why not be bold, brave, and just flat out headline :Trump lies about mocking a person with a disability. Follow with facts. At least someone, somewhere would have had the audacity to call it what it is. A lie. Not a spin, but a flat out lie. why is that so difficult?
22
trump is not a liar. He's a godamned liar and so are all his pack of toadies starting with the mistress of propaganda, kellyanne conway and including mitch mcconnell.
19
To New York Times: Publish a correction now, clarify the story. Trump lied; video caught him mocking Mr. Kovaleski. It's there for all to see.
33
Bravo, very simple, do this and use it as a guideline henceforth .
I saw the video, which is to say -- the whole thing -- not the few seconds where Trump waves his arms around.
Trump was mocking Kovaleski for saying "he did not remember his own story" from 2001, about New Jersey Muslims celebrating the fall of the towers.
Trump did wave his arms around, but Kovaleski DOES NOT do that. His arms are paralyzed and hang at his sides. Kovaleski is not spastic, nor does he have Parkinsons or any other kind of tremors.
If Trump was mocking Kovaleski, he would have had his arms hanging stiffly at side while doing so. Not waving them around.
Trump has used this particular "flailing gesture" to make fun of other people. You may consider it silly or rude in general, but it has nothing to do with Serge Kovaleski.
Trump was mocking Kovaleski for saying "he did not remember his own story" from 2001, about New Jersey Muslims celebrating the fall of the towers.
Trump did wave his arms around, but Kovaleski DOES NOT do that. His arms are paralyzed and hang at his sides. Kovaleski is not spastic, nor does he have Parkinsons or any other kind of tremors.
If Trump was mocking Kovaleski, he would have had his arms hanging stiffly at side while doing so. Not waving them around.
Trump has used this particular "flailing gesture" to make fun of other people. You may consider it silly or rude in general, but it has nothing to do with Serge Kovaleski.
2
We have had presidents who were sociopathic (Nixon), stupid (Harding), concupiscent (Clinton and others), racist (many), and deceptive (many more). We have had slave holders and butchers. But we have not had anyone quite like Trump. We never before had a clown, least of all a malevolent one. With the possible exceptions of butchery and slaveholding, he embodies all of the aforementioned attributes and none of the mitigations, such as the charm of Harding, the towering intellects of Wilson, Jefferson, and Clinton, the sagacity of Nixon (wait till Putin plays with him), or the compassion of LBJ. Such people thrive on "he said, she said," and lie reflexively. So, besides as a clown, how might we describe him?
The NYT will not print a profane term used by us simple folks to describe a singularly unglamorous part of human anatomy. Too bad.
The NYT will not print a profane term used by us simple folks to describe a singularly unglamorous part of human anatomy. Too bad.
16
The question may be, will the Times waffle again about this in the future? (and then have the Public Editor write another piece effectively playing apologist for bad reporting).
14
The New York Times did the same thing when reporting on an exclusive phone call with Trump when the paper printed his claim to have won more counties than Ronald Reagan - which is not true - with no statement rebutting his claim. That the article was later re-titled and revised to omit Trump's false claim is not a correction: it was just poor reporting.
(The original headline was: "Trump Says Focus on Russian Hacking Is a ‘Political Witch Hunt"; the revised article was re-titled: "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds")
(The original headline was: "Trump Says Focus on Russian Hacking Is a ‘Political Witch Hunt"; the revised article was re-titled: "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds")
11
Shame on the NYT. Just another example of the Times and others of the mainstream media failing in their journalistic duties. Another example of Times and other mainstream media kowtowing to Trump since his false victory. (He's NOT my president.) To justify the unjustified decision not to challenge Trump on his lies and wild allegations on "deadline pressure" doesn't cut it. This is not the time for the NYT or other legitimate news outfits to appease the lier in chief. It's not the time for "balanced" reports (whatever that means). The NYT and others must hit and hit hard the lier in chief at every turn.
17
When conservatives called Obama "NOT MY PRESIDENT", what did you say to them and about them?
Did you not call them racists and delusional?
So what does that make YOU? (besides a bad sport and poor loser, that is?)
Did you not call them racists and delusional?
So what does that make YOU? (besides a bad sport and poor loser, that is?)
"So what does that make YOU? (besides a bad sport and poor loser, that is?)"
Racist and delusional...as well as a bad sport an poor losers.
A read of the comments allowed on Mz. Spayd article shows that their a more than just a few who are incensed to the point of hysteria that Donald Trump had the gall to win the election.
Actually, it is somewhat fun to watch them implode.
Racist and delusional...as well as a bad sport an poor losers.
A read of the comments allowed on Mz. Spayd article shows that their a more than just a few who are incensed to the point of hysteria that Donald Trump had the gall to win the election.
Actually, it is somewhat fun to watch them implode.
1
Isn't it way past time that the news media needs to directly use action words like "lie" when correct? When a statement is made that is intentionally wrong, use "lie". If is wrong because the speaker is uninformed, add that the statement is "factually incorrect".
And some lies, like denying climate change, are so important that they, and their consequences, need to be highlighted!
This stuff matters, and the `reputable' press (or at least aspiring to be) like the NYT or WaPost need to do better than just being part of the `Facebook flow' of random `news'.
And some lies, like denying climate change, are so important that they, and their consequences, need to be highlighted!
This stuff matters, and the `reputable' press (or at least aspiring to be) like the NYT or WaPost need to do better than just being part of the `Facebook flow' of random `news'.
17
A new front page is what we need today with a prominent space dedicated to printing DT twitter feed as he posts them and showing video clips of his comments instead of burying them within articles that most people may not go through. Readers should be able to read his tweets directly and watch DT video clips without complicated narratives by the media or spins by his team. We live in a world of keywords and immediacy, mainstream media needs to respond in kind by stating the facts and data supporting these facts then following up with excellent in depth long form articles.
3
You guys have been stenographers since before Stephen Colbert called you out. We now have a President-elect who lies every time he opens his mouth, and you still refuse to do your job.
17
Do NYT "journalists" have no memory or keep no notes of events or controversies as recent as the 2016 election? The issues of the many, many lies of Trump were covered extensively as they were said and in overviews after the election. This "disability" mockery by Trump was the theme of a major ad campaign as well that was extensively examined and found to be true by most major factcheckers.
I lose respect for the NYT every time its journalists fail to be complete and accurate in the major facts of important stories, especially those involving Trump. I rarely count which media source is first; I rarely care what Trump's reaction is to any speech or comment critical of him. If "deadline" pressure is too hard for journalists and editors on staff, try hiring some of the many currently unemployed journalists and editors who may perhaps have better memories for context or keep better notes on Trump's lies. When the president can't be trusted to be consistent or remember what he has said or done, the media must remind him and us.
I lose respect for the NYT every time its journalists fail to be complete and accurate in the major facts of important stories, especially those involving Trump. I rarely count which media source is first; I rarely care what Trump's reaction is to any speech or comment critical of him. If "deadline" pressure is too hard for journalists and editors on staff, try hiring some of the many currently unemployed journalists and editors who may perhaps have better memories for context or keep better notes on Trump's lies. When the president can't be trusted to be consistent or remember what he has said or done, the media must remind him and us.
17
I live in Ohio; as a swing state, we get the bulk of election advertising.
Trump ran relatively little advertising. Hillary ran it morning, noon and night. God knows how much she spent on this. Her ads were all attack ads. Trump's ads, interestingly, were very mild & moderate -- "Morning in America" types of ads.
Hillary probably ran 10-12 times as many ads as Trump did. She outspent him by a factor of ten...at least.
Most of her ads were attack ads. Many of them focused on this very issue -- Trump was an awful person who mocked a disabled man. Some of the ads featured disabled children, sobbing that the President mocked the disabled. Some were parents, sobbing that their disabled children would grow up with a President who had mocked the disabled. (*Never mind for the point of truth here, that Trump never mocked anyone for their disability. It is a fiction that has grown to being a religious dogma for liberals.)
Another series of ads were from women about how "Trump said sexist things" about other women, groped women, etc. The Billy Bush tapes were prominently featured.
The result of all this -- hundreds of millions in advertising, just in my state -- was that...Trump lost Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
So maybe it is time to WAKE UP and realize that the lefty liberal fixation on "political correctness in speech and actions" has very little sway on voters. Most of them clearly do not care.
Trump ran relatively little advertising. Hillary ran it morning, noon and night. God knows how much she spent on this. Her ads were all attack ads. Trump's ads, interestingly, were very mild & moderate -- "Morning in America" types of ads.
Hillary probably ran 10-12 times as many ads as Trump did. She outspent him by a factor of ten...at least.
Most of her ads were attack ads. Many of them focused on this very issue -- Trump was an awful person who mocked a disabled man. Some of the ads featured disabled children, sobbing that the President mocked the disabled. Some were parents, sobbing that their disabled children would grow up with a President who had mocked the disabled. (*Never mind for the point of truth here, that Trump never mocked anyone for their disability. It is a fiction that has grown to being a religious dogma for liberals.)
Another series of ads were from women about how "Trump said sexist things" about other women, groped women, etc. The Billy Bush tapes were prominently featured.
The result of all this -- hundreds of millions in advertising, just in my state -- was that...Trump lost Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
So maybe it is time to WAKE UP and realize that the lefty liberal fixation on "political correctness in speech and actions" has very little sway on voters. Most of them clearly do not care.
1
RE: Concerned Citizen (Ohio)
Comments like this one holding to the fiction that Trump never mocked the disabled reporter are an example of the importance of journalists using context and facts in articles rather than just the Trump "reaction" which will be most likely another lie.
I am temporarily disabled and using a wheelchair. Those ignorant people who think access for disabled people or treating disabled people with respect is a a question of "PC" (politically correct language) should try moving about as a person using a wheelchair or crutches for a week or two. A president such as Trump who is generally insensitive to all people but singles out the disabled for ridicule does create fear for any American who understands the words of our founding documents.
Comments like this one holding to the fiction that Trump never mocked the disabled reporter are an example of the importance of journalists using context and facts in articles rather than just the Trump "reaction" which will be most likely another lie.
I am temporarily disabled and using a wheelchair. Those ignorant people who think access for disabled people or treating disabled people with respect is a a question of "PC" (politically correct language) should try moving about as a person using a wheelchair or crutches for a week or two. A president such as Trump who is generally insensitive to all people but singles out the disabled for ridicule does create fear for any American who understands the words of our founding documents.
3
I doubt that the Culture Desk is staffed to cover hard news, especially in the wee hours. This incident is a fine example of how much NYT depends on its readers to keep it on its toes.
5
That's why I get lots of my news from the Washington Post. Even if, as many have pointed out, some of it is fake news or retweeted nonsnse. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Neither the NY Times oe the WaPo are high on my list of credible news organizations right now because of shoddy reportage.
"They do it too" seems to be the response to any accusations of wrongdoing these days, and I'm disappointed to see the NYT public editor resorting to this schoolyard tactic.
"They do it too" seems to be the response to any accusations of wrongdoing these days, and I'm disappointed to see the NYT public editor resorting to this schoolyard tactic.
2
This weaseling around the PE's lies has gone on long enough! There are no excuses at all--late night reporting is certainly not one of them. Get it right before getting it fast.
10
Deadline pressure does not explain the countless times this same thing happens in the pages of this newspaper. When is there going to be a shift in the way you report on this figure, who rarely tells the truth and even if what he says is truthful at the time, it inevitably is abandoned within hours. Or by one of his supposed spokespeople.
And when is there going to be some follow up on some of these stories. Where is the hacking revelation Trump promised and you dutifully reported on for last Tuesday or Wednesday. There needs to be an article all about how he broke that promise. And what about the news conference tomorrow? What time and where? Is it really going to happen? Are you going to notice if it doesn't? Time to go after him with all you've got. YOU DECIDE WHAT'S FIT TO PRINT, NOT TRUMP!
And when is there going to be some follow up on some of these stories. Where is the hacking revelation Trump promised and you dutifully reported on for last Tuesday or Wednesday. There needs to be an article all about how he broke that promise. And what about the news conference tomorrow? What time and where? Is it really going to happen? Are you going to notice if it doesn't? Time to go after him with all you've got. YOU DECIDE WHAT'S FIT TO PRINT, NOT TRUMP!
16
All that you wrote about NYT reporting on this incident. Actually, agree with most of your conclusions. What I disagree with is your last paragraph in which you begin by stating that NYT was not "the only news organization that fumbled this one" (a rationalization that Dean Baquet often used during the past year). Then you correctly wrote. about the Washington Post going further and pointed out their "fact-check tagged" him with four "Pinocchios". Perhaps you will inform the executives and editors of the NYT this is precisely why many of us who have been longtime subscribers of this newspaper now also subscribe to the Washington Post - i.e., they are not afraid to publish the complete truth. The fact that I now pay to read another news organization rather than trusting what is written in the NYT would have been an impossibility two years ago.
11
New York Times and all members of the Fourth Estate:
DO YOUR JOB. We need you more than ever to stop the false equivalency.
DO YOUR JOB. We need you more than ever to stop the false equivalency.
13
What I want to know is when is the NY Times going to quit making the same mistake over and over.
16
What an excuse: "it was after midnight".
How do we get the NYT new now, "All the news except thoughtlessly if it is made after 11:59 or so"?
I pay for a subscription whose masthead does not say that.
I know times for the Times are tough, but tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but.
Please tell me that news after midnight gets decent vetting and full
consideration before it's sent to me.
Please don't give me an untruth about a story about a bully and liar's own untruths. The irony hurts.
How do we get the NYT new now, "All the news except thoughtlessly if it is made after 11:59 or so"?
I pay for a subscription whose masthead does not say that.
I know times for the Times are tough, but tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but.
Please tell me that news after midnight gets decent vetting and full
consideration before it's sent to me.
Please don't give me an untruth about a story about a bully and liar's own untruths. The irony hurts.
6
So, you will happily pay 10 times the current subscription rate, so they can hire more people for the midnight to morning shift? You should be. You want it, nothing is free now. Oh, don't get caught reading any paper or magazine in a store, then not buying it. It's the same as stealing.
The NYT let the World down, especially our democracy. I hope I never see another column by Maureen Dowd or her brother Kevin. It is time to not just go after Trump but the super right wing cabal he surrounds himself with. It has to be a "take no prisoners" investigative journalism to stop fascism or will the NYT submit.
5
It may only be useful as a thought experiment, but perhaps we should start viewing Trump's tweets and other pronouncements not as statements of policy or fact, but as performance art, theatrical expressions of his imagination or aspirations to be held to aesthetic standards. Fact-checking them misunderstands his purpose. He seeks to create his own reality, not reflect the one most of us have to deal with.
1
Trump does not lie. Liars know they are lying. Trump fabricates an alternate reality in which he completely and utterly believes everything he says at any moment -- regardless of previous statements, video, or any other kind of evidence. Not "sad" -- horrifying and terrifying, not least of all because all of his supporters and virtually every Republican in Congress just don't care.
1
That still qualifies as lying, Michael. As someone else here said, unless he's ruled not guilty by reason of insanity, which he ultimately might be, he's responsible for the things he says. Fabricating an alternate reality is lying to yourself, for sure, but when you're broadcasting it in the face of all kinds of evidence to the contrary, you're still lying. This garbage about "intent" in judging a lie is just that, garbage.
2
Just like the Public Editor who wrote concerning your coverage of Donald Trump's denial of his mockery toward Kovaleski I am truly upset that you did not jump on his denial as you must continue to do with every lie that comes out of his mouth. It is preposterous what people are letting him get away with. You could have one heading in the paper on a regular basis that deals simply with his lies so that people who don't want to hear the truth about these lies can simply ignore that coverage as Ms. Colky would like to do. But then, why are they reading the New York Times in the first place if they want sham coverage?
3
Ms. Spayd would sound a lot more convincing if the Times had called out Obama and Hillary Clinton on their respective lies.
2
Stamp out false equivalence, this one served with a heaping helping of red Ru$$ian herring.
2
If you cannot call him out for this most basic of untruths, what are you going to do when the going gets tough and dicey? And we all know it will. This was an easy call, a childish lie, you better start working on your strategy! Disappointed!
6
Thank you Public Editor for taking this stand. We need more of this done objectively and speedily. Words and gestures do matter.
I want to express my agreement with Liz Spayd, the Public Editor, regarding the reporting of Ms. Streep's Golden Globes comments and Mr. Trump's response.
Trump has played the media since he entered the campaign in 2015. The mainstream media has allowed him to side-issue important topics by jumping on whatever outrageous comment he utters and provide a false equivalency in its reporting.
In the case at hand, Ms. Spayd correctly reports that the Times and other news outlets left unchallenged Trump's contention the he did not mock your reporter. In addition, it consumed a one or two day news cycle that could have / should have concentrated on the involvement of Russia in our election. That was headline news on Sunday and was relegated to an afterthought compared to the Streep conflict. As Trump might say, "Sad."
Stop letting him play you folks.
Respectfully,
Dr. R. Kevin McClean
Trump has played the media since he entered the campaign in 2015. The mainstream media has allowed him to side-issue important topics by jumping on whatever outrageous comment he utters and provide a false equivalency in its reporting.
In the case at hand, Ms. Spayd correctly reports that the Times and other news outlets left unchallenged Trump's contention the he did not mock your reporter. In addition, it consumed a one or two day news cycle that could have / should have concentrated on the involvement of Russia in our election. That was headline news on Sunday and was relegated to an afterthought compared to the Streep conflict. As Trump might say, "Sad."
Stop letting him play you folks.
Respectfully,
Dr. R. Kevin McClean
4
I had to go online to find the video of Trump mocking the reporter. It should have been a link in the online coverage. While I was at it, I searched for the video of Obama making the Special Olympics comment. Trump was being childish, ugly, and a bully. Obama was being thoughtless, privileged ( to not be close enough to a disabled loved one to know better ) and making an unfortunate attempt at self deprecation. I can forgive one, not the other.
2
Hey, NYT. Isn't it about time you got your stuff together on Trump's lying? If the Washington Post can do it, why can't you?
2
The "he said-she said" approach to the news plainly amounts to cowardice. The news media, including such as NPR and The New York Times, have joined Fox News in blurring the difference between fact and opinion. Rarely does one see the news media take a stand - even when the evidence on the facts is plain to the media outlet and story in question - like this one under discussion. This amounts to the news media creating its own obsolescence, for why would I want to follow a media that only confuses every issue of fact - and often relies on partisan "experts" as their interview programs. Very sad and dangerous to our concept of a free press. Basically the news media has turned itself into a Not Free Press - as it allows itself to manipulate its coverage in a misguided effort to be fare. Suggest the NY Times publisher and Editors watch again the movie "Good Night and Good Luck".
57
So true. It seems that ALL media has bowed to the #lying president elect#. I saw the similar pathetic coverage at GMA on ABC, by George S. May be they are all afraid of being #TweetedOut#. It truly is the time to say GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Well, it is what many commenters have been screaming for. Just the "facts". Then they mumble about "facts" being different for anyone. Actually the fact here is, since the election most papers and many other media outlets have been only writing truncated facts. Not all the facts about the bald faced liar Trump. Why? I don' know. Maybe because the Chumps are so violent in both action and speech, that they feel insecure. I can fix that. Every reporter, without background check, should carry concealed, with legal authority to kill any chump trying to hurt, kill, or denigrate them, in public, where they work, or at home. In other words, everywhere at any time. Fewer Chumps would make this country better. As I don't think that they are capable of learning to be decent people. They also missed the class that described the meaning of the word "fact". A fact either is or isn't, no waffling allowed.
So, since papers from the beginning of this country have been allowed to have opinions (biases to some, though they are too stupid to know that it means what they say is biased also), Otherwise only one paper for the whole country now, with the internet and all, the rest could close. Same with the electronic media, by the Chumps wants, only one network (and no local) is needed. Just facts. No stories. Like there was some big football game last night. Lots of stories about it all over. In this new world, THE newspaper should have just given the final score. Nothing else.
So, since papers from the beginning of this country have been allowed to have opinions (biases to some, though they are too stupid to know that it means what they say is biased also), Otherwise only one paper for the whole country now, with the internet and all, the rest could close. Same with the electronic media, by the Chumps wants, only one network (and no local) is needed. Just facts. No stories. Like there was some big football game last night. Lots of stories about it all over. In this new world, THE newspaper should have just given the final score. Nothing else.
Every time the President-elect is not called out soundly and clearly as a liar, it makes the reader believe that more and more people are falling into line, just as they did in the Germany of 1933.
127
They are. First the news media. Then the entertainment side (lots of "stories" about Trump's wonderful past, glorious present, and dead future. Oops. Sorry, I meant, going down in history as the only worthy man who ever lived. He's old. So dead is the truth. The sooner the more likely with each passing day.
Right on.
Yep, the news media has been passing on everything Trump has said for the last 16 months, a billion dollars of free press with little challenge of facts. He's now becoming President.
But don't worry, his spokesperson has stated it's not what he says but what's in his heart that really counts. I feel better already.
But don't worry, his spokesperson has stated it's not what he says but what's in his heart that really counts. I feel better already.
59
What's in his heart? A black hole. An empty black hole.
3
It is never wrong to call a liar a liar just as it is never wrong to call out liars. I jave suggested this before and I know the media doesn't want an adversarial relationship with Trump but that already exists. People who speak to Trump need to look him in the eyes and say, in no uncertain terms, "what you just said is a lie and here is the truth." If he continues the lie repeat the first part. Continue until he loses his cool. He will. He is thin skinned and easily frustrated. He needs to be contradicted frequently and without hesitation. He will look like an even bigger buffoon than he already does. If enough pressure is put on this piece of garbage he might even resign in frustration.
51
With his age, a heart attack is more likely. The more we all frustrate him, the sooner he will have one, a big one, and then the celebrating can start. Then we go to work on the religious bigot Pense.
1
Trump is simply vile. Does the NYT really HAVE to publish several forms of in-depth analysis of his every hiccup? It would appear he intends to maintain his Wizard of Oz dictum by Twitter approach for his term as POTUS, but this reader suggests the Times consider the same concept one might use on a recalcitrant four year old: ignore him. Just try it, let's see what happens.
29
Just print, in a column, buried in the paper, every word he tweets, time, and place. Don't explain what they might mean. Don't do anything but print them. Most are obscene enough by themselves that will be enough. Don't correct grammar, spelling, of sentence structure. Just print exactly what he says. If he deletes one, changes it, then tweets it again. Print both back to back. His insane idiocy will be plain to see.
Thank you for this. We cannot normalize Trump and his egregious lies and behavior. I believe good journalism includes the responsibility to unveil the inaccuracies and untruths in a news item, a quality that has been sorely lacking too often the last many months in numerous newspapers, including the NYTimes. So glad to see this piece state it so eloquently.
30
The media and public are reacting to a blizzard of trivial events while not really focusing on the 800 lb gorilla in the room: conservatives are preparing to dismantle years of progress on health, environmental and social policy. This is like in WW II when releasing millions of metallic bits of confetti were used to confuse enemy radar signals. Keep your eyes on the prize and get ready for an epic struggle.
29
This rebuke should be the lead story on the NYT homepage. Its current location is no different than the all-too-common practice of putting the "truth" in the last paragraph of a 10-paragraph story. Thank you, Liz.
36
Well lets Facebook it and email it.
I don't particularly care who the individual is or the position the hold (or will hold) or how much money they may (or may not) have. If they have a proven track record of lying more often than not, then it is the duty of the forth estate to call them out on it without reservation.
There will be many more individuals who will call out his offenses (foreign and domestic) and he will predictably react. First, recognize that every reactionary tweet isn't news, second, if you're going to talk about it validate. The desperation for attention doesn't make him right. Facts are facts - the sky is blue, rain is wet, etc.
Do not allow it to appear he's right when he isn't.
There will be many more individuals who will call out his offenses (foreign and domestic) and he will predictably react. First, recognize that every reactionary tweet isn't news, second, if you're going to talk about it validate. The desperation for attention doesn't make him right. Facts are facts - the sky is blue, rain is wet, etc.
Do not allow it to appear he's right when he isn't.
27
Trump must be called out by the media for his lies — consistently, repeatedly, loudly and with the same frequency as he repeats them.
35
Is that the only time Trump used that gesture?
SFAIK, it isn't. Which, if true, is a glaring omission.
SFAIK, it isn't. Which, if true, is a glaring omission.
4
So disappointed in NYT for calling "president " elect to ask for his response !! What did you think he'd say ??? Please call a spade a spade . Don't insult your readers w a kelly Anne Conway spin !
29
I appreciate the public editor plainly coming out with this follow up piece. May I suggest that all reporters regardless of what journal they write for should as a basic premise know that Mr. Trump has a habit of outright falsehoods. When working under a deadline pressure, that basic fact needs to be kept in mind along side the "news event at hand". Lets remember that when he becomes president, he will have information that will not necessarily be readily available to the public. Will be allow him to characterize information however he wants. Be aware that agencies depending on the type of source of the information involved will not necessarily be in a position to comment on the veracity of Mr. Trumps comments.
7
Are you noticing that these alleged 'Trump tweets' are always published/posted as if they are IN FACT legitimate, vetted, verified, and established as genuine DJT product. In fact, NONE of that is true. We have no idea who authors this digital drivel nor does anybody at any media outlet bother to lift a finger to find out. These 'tweets' are just more click bait for NYT, WaPo, WSJ, and everyone else who treats them as fact. Welcome to the post-truth world of ratings, click bait, and profit--at any cost.
10
Are you claiming that Donald Trump did not tweet, "For the 100th time, I never "mocked" a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him......." from his account to his millions of followers?
That'd be just silly. Why would Kellyanne Conway, his spokesperson, defend the statement--- tweet--- by Trump if he didn't say it. Why wouldn't the Trump organization jump to their boss's defense and immediately deny the authenticity of the tweets?
And sorry, the tweets are more than just "click bait". Twitter is the way our president-elect communicates. Take away the tweets and Trump might as well be in an isolation chamber.
Besides, they constantly remind us of the essential moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind DT.
That'd be just silly. Why would Kellyanne Conway, his spokesperson, defend the statement--- tweet--- by Trump if he didn't say it. Why wouldn't the Trump organization jump to their boss's defense and immediately deny the authenticity of the tweets?
And sorry, the tweets are more than just "click bait". Twitter is the way our president-elect communicates. Take away the tweets and Trump might as well be in an isolation chamber.
Besides, they constantly remind us of the essential moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind DT.
3
What kind of loony argument are you making? I am not aware of Trump or any of his representatives ever denying any of these tweets from Trump's personal account. If someone was putting out false tweets, wouldn't Trump bring this up? You make no sense.
4
Are you saying Vladimir Putin hacked Trump's Twitter feed?
Just one more step in the continuing decline of "The Sulzburger Dynasty!"
So sad...sigh!
This used to be a great newspaper. The Times stood up to Nixon in 1971 with "The Pentagon Papers."
I guess the Sulzburger DNA just keeps declining.
You know this really bad if Liz Spayd gets it right.
Where is the apology Dean Baquet?
So sad...sigh!
This used to be a great newspaper. The Times stood up to Nixon in 1971 with "The Pentagon Papers."
I guess the Sulzburger DNA just keeps declining.
You know this really bad if Liz Spayd gets it right.
Where is the apology Dean Baquet?
10
Decline, sez you.
Most thinking people see the "decline" in the thin-skinned bully who communicates in little sound bites.
Most thinking people see the "decline" in the thin-skinned bully who communicates in little sound bites.
2
This is one of The Times' defining characteristics. It doesn't learn from its past mistakes and apply these lessons going forward (often because it doesn't see them as mistakes, just things others believe are mistakes).
In this case, we're on the brink of an almost unthinkable presidency, largely because the media-- led by The Times, of course-- couldn't have been bothered to fact-check Trump when it might have derailed his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Apparently, Baquet and Sulzberger don't see this journalistic malpractice as such, or even as a mistake, as now they're content to let him say what he pleases, sans fact-check, so as not to divert resources from providing all the shiny new and exciting interactive video toys they'd like to foist on us.
In this case, we're on the brink of an almost unthinkable presidency, largely because the media-- led by The Times, of course-- couldn't have been bothered to fact-check Trump when it might have derailed his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Apparently, Baquet and Sulzberger don't see this journalistic malpractice as such, or even as a mistake, as now they're content to let him say what he pleases, sans fact-check, so as not to divert resources from providing all the shiny new and exciting interactive video toys they'd like to foist on us.
17
So what happens next? Was the reporter fired or given much more rigorous oversight? MIght you consider rehiring some of the very, very experienced reporters and editors that you've let go over the years? Will you add a level of editing before these things go live? You're supposed to be the most professional newsroom in the country. Do better.
19
I'm pleased to see this internal review. Trump clearly needs to be called out on his lies. At the same time, he lies so much that reporters and editors might find themselves in a bind.
16
Why keep agonizing over every single tweet trump tweets? At this point, most of his statements have been proven to be lies (or easily can be, with a little research and analysis). trump is a known, habitual liar. So now, when you find yourself up against a deadline and don't have the time to prove beyond a doubt that trump is, once again, lying, simply preface the statement with something like:
"Known pathological and serial liar, trump, stated..."
Then follow up with the evidence that he lied the next day.
"Known pathological and serial liar, trump, stated..."
Then follow up with the evidence that he lied the next day.
28
add a notice the item is subject to verification which will be provided within 48 hrs.
5
The fact that readers of the Times believe that Trump's use of the flailing alligator arms wasn't especially cruel because they have seen him do it in other videos is stunning. The fact that these same readers state that the omission of these other videos from reporting is proof of "fake news" by the Times is chilling. What good is the exercise of journalistic self-reflection here when readers lack decency and wisdom?
21
I saw that the person who took up for Trump is
allegedly writing from Germany. Hmmm.
allegedly writing from Germany. Hmmm.
Just curious, what is the time line on the other flailing of arms by Trump. If they are after the Times Reporter incident they don't count, if before then the Times owes him an apology.
"The problem, of course, is that the story that came out of that interview simply took what Trump said and passed it on to readers without context or question. It fits a pattern that has tangled the media too many times already: reporters seemingly so flummoxed by Trump’s utterances that they find themselves satisfied just to pass the information on."
Yes, this is exactly what's happening in the media. It makes the reporters look like they are just publishing Trump press releases, or that they are peculiarly excited to interview him (a la Maureen Dowd). Whatever the reason, it normalizes Trump's behavior in a dangerous way.
Real journalism is needed now more than ever.
Yes, this is exactly what's happening in the media. It makes the reporters look like they are just publishing Trump press releases, or that they are peculiarly excited to interview him (a la Maureen Dowd). Whatever the reason, it normalizes Trump's behavior in a dangerous way.
Real journalism is needed now more than ever.
26
We need Ida Tarbell!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell
3
A good large share of the daily readers, if you haven't noticed, are screaming that anything but straight "facts" (what they consider facts, only) is permissible. Tell the world anything else and that is "wrong'. They say it loud and clear often, and every day. Probably the newest Trump scam to turn decent folk away from the decent media. Cause they do some stories, just "facts" as the chumps want, the rest of us complain, say the paper is dying, cause it doesn't give opinions. So, no matter what they do, they get lambasted with hate. From the Trump side (NO OPINION, OPINIONS BAD). From the freedom of speech side, (NO OPINIONS IS BAD, LET'S TRUMP GET AWAY WITH LIES). If I was a reporter I might just say chuck this, let the whole country rot, no one actually listens anymore. They just want "their" side told. No one elses. Maybe it's time for a couple people to start a couple national papers, one for Trump (his side and no other ever, everyone must subscribe, or you will be punished), and one for thinking people (the truth, fact checked, even if it makes your piece a bit later than others, donate if you wish.).
My apostrophe (and other broken keys) are back and I don't know why. I just thank the Key Fairies for it.
My apostrophe (and other broken keys) are back and I don't know why. I just thank the Key Fairies for it.
So in other words, huge, total, and disgraceful FAIL on the part of the New York Times? Couldn't you bring yourself to say that? Maybe just as bad as what you're (so mildly and incompletely) criticizing?
8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc - Trump did not mock this reporter. He simply used the same hand gestures that he used in other instances to demonstrate people when they are flustered. Ted Cruz for example is one of the individuals that Trump used the same hand motions to describe. I find it interesting that the media is unable to connect these dots. it is however more to their left leaning benefit to forget these other instances ever happened.
6
Please remove your head from the sand.
6
Trump absolutely mocked this reporter. Just because you personally laughed at this schoolyard bully, does not mitigate the despicable act our thug in chief engaged in.
17
Guilty as charged...us "lefties" have something that you, who I'm guessing is conservative will never ever possess, compassion for other human beings. That you would even submit this letter illustrates your lack of feeling for others. To paraphrase: "Have you no shame?" No, I guess not.
10
The point made here also bothered me to no end when I read the Times' "appearing to mock" phrase. It appears that the NYTimes in this case is already slowly bending under our Bully In Chief's strategy of just obfuscating and lying ("never met that reporter") when questioned about instances of his terrible behavior. I hope this will not ever be an accepted approach by the NYT writers. Never let this man off the hook when he acts like a lowlife!
35
Even the NYT stumbles sometimes. But she always recovers and it will be a cold day in Hollywood before this phony Trump claim goes unchallenged again.
9
I'm embarrassed for the NYT that you even have to go here now. After all this time you still don't get it!
If you think this lets the NYT off-the-hook, you're wrong!
There's nothing in this write-up that gives any indication of what the NYT learned from this and what the NYT will do in the future to prevent it from continuing to happen.
If you think this lets the NYT off-the-hook, you're wrong!
There's nothing in this write-up that gives any indication of what the NYT learned from this and what the NYT will do in the future to prevent it from continuing to happen.
13
We must be mindful that the press has lost its way. NYT's Dean Baquet called DT "the most compelling president we've had in my lifetime" on Fresh Air and Terry Gross fails to challenge his characterization. The Boston Globe announces it is no longer a newspaper "of record" but "of interest" and publishes a piece about Republicans being more attractive than Democrats. Across the board, "the media" are publishing everything DT tweets, regardless of news value, & forgoes demanding press conferences on serious issues of governance. Now, the NYT has downgraded the vile, on-camera mocking of its own reporter to merely the "appear"ance of mockery. It is as if a fog has settled over the nation and everything we've relied on to help us understand the world--including our current president, the checks & balances built into our government & our fair & free media--is being absorbed into DT's version of reality. It makes no sense. Isn't this EXACTLY the kind of crisis that these things exist to push back against?
20
Glad the Times recognized its error. One hopes they will do better in the future.
Trump has no character or integrity whatsoever, and just barely enough intelligence to understand that other people respond negatively to his offensive, childish conduct. Since he has pathological self-esteem problems, and attempts to humiliate or dominate those who "reject" him, his meager level of intelligence informs him that he must lie about most of his words and actions, most of the time. We all should anticipate this conduct, and respond appropriately.
Perhaps each newspaper and news site in the US should have a daily feature called "Trump's Lies From Today." When the list gets too long (maybe around 1:00 or 2:00 pm), they could be prioritized by how scurrilous and heinous they are.
Trump has no character or integrity whatsoever, and just barely enough intelligence to understand that other people respond negatively to his offensive, childish conduct. Since he has pathological self-esteem problems, and attempts to humiliate or dominate those who "reject" him, his meager level of intelligence informs him that he must lie about most of his words and actions, most of the time. We all should anticipate this conduct, and respond appropriately.
Perhaps each newspaper and news site in the US should have a daily feature called "Trump's Lies From Today." When the list gets too long (maybe around 1:00 or 2:00 pm), they could be prioritized by how scurrilous and heinous they are.
13
I've been a reader of the NY Times since I was in college and I'm now 75. In my view, the Times needs to examine and check the explanations of Kellyanne Conway just as thoroughly, if not more so, than Trump himself.
So often Trump will tweet something really stupid and then Conway "explains" what was in his "heart". She needs to be held accountable!
So often Trump will tweet something really stupid and then Conway "explains" what was in his "heart". She needs to be held accountable!
37
During the campaign, every Friday, The Guardian ran a column called "Lies Donald Trump Told This Week." They should bring that column back since Trump still compulsively lies.
In fact, every paper that cares about America ought to run "Lies Donald Trump Told This Week" on the front page. Eventually Congress, who right now loves Trump, will realize they're dealing with someone who is unstable. Isn't compulsive lying a mental illness?
In fact, every paper that cares about America ought to run "Lies Donald Trump Told This Week" on the front page. Eventually Congress, who right now loves Trump, will realize they're dealing with someone who is unstable. Isn't compulsive lying a mental illness?
61
Superb suggestion.
As an aside, does anyone notice the sheer amount of time & energy required to document the truth & dismantle the lies of sociopathic discourse? Right down to the necessity of proving the amount & variety of frocks available for the inaugural balls. "Ah, what a tangled web...."
That being said, perhaps a daily published Fact Sheet would let us keep up with "who's on first".
As an aside, does anyone notice the sheer amount of time & energy required to document the truth & dismantle the lies of sociopathic discourse? Right down to the necessity of proving the amount & variety of frocks available for the inaugural balls. "Ah, what a tangled web...."
That being said, perhaps a daily published Fact Sheet would let us keep up with "who's on first".
7
DT may be a genius. As awful as his mockery of someone's disability, and his then lying about it (again, and again, and again) is, where in God's name are the reports about the confirmation hearings for his cabinet that are commencing today without even a minimum of background checks????
NYT - please, by all means, call out DT's lies, but more importantly - do NOT let up the pressure on things that can still be stopped.
As to Ms. Conway's statement about what is in DT's heart - did she never hear the quote from the bible about judging someone by their actions?
NYT - please, by all means, call out DT's lies, but more importantly - do NOT let up the pressure on things that can still be stopped.
As to Ms. Conway's statement about what is in DT's heart - did she never hear the quote from the bible about judging someone by their actions?
2
Here we see the Times and the mainstream media becoming Trump's toadies. Moreover, the majority of readers will see only the Times' bent knee, not the later apology. Thus, it begins.
38
In debating whether or not Trump was actually mocking a disabled reporter (although his gestures and tone were extremely childish), don't lose sight of the fact that he did lie when he claimed not to have met the reporter. Keep your eyes on that. And if he didn't lie, then his memory is extremely faulty, which we also know and - these days, I now go a step further - the man is mentally unstable.
86
They did meet over 20 years ago. I am sure that Trump (nor anyone else who meets that many people) would remember someone who is insignificant to them.
@Laura: But *everyone* is insignificant to Trump (except maybe his pal, Vlad Putin)!
6
I quote: Trump knew him by name in those days when Trump was a prominent New York developer. The two met in person at least a dozen times, Kovaleski said then."
Stop making excuses for Trump...that is what is so scary.
Stop making excuses for Trump...that is what is so scary.
We have repeatedly had instances where Trump reversed himself on things he said or did. My impression was that he was mocking the disability of the reporter when I first saw it. He frequently makes comments that are cruel and dismissive of those who challenge his point of view. MSM are reporting his words and tweets without proper checks and that must not continue.
31
"The story was written under deadline pressure after midnight".
Is that supposed to be an excuse? You're the New York Times and it's 2017. If Trump can lie after midnight, you need to have staff to call him out on it.
Is that supposed to be an excuse? You're the New York Times and it's 2017. If Trump can lie after midnight, you need to have staff to call him out on it.
173
Furthermore, Patrick Healy of New York Times admitted he called him after midnight about the Meryl Streep speech.
2
The problem for news organizations with describing what Trump is saying is that many of the terms or phrases are judgmental (lying, liar), and therefore are an opinion, which shouldn't be in a news article. The trick is to choose the most neutral description possible. I think "true" and "false" might be as close as you can get. "Repeated his false statement" might be the way to go. The Times should update its style guide to reflect this new age of discourse. And provide online links to everything that shows a statement to be false (or true). And, naturally, everyone should remember to keep track of what Trump actually does, which will be proof of what past statement was true and what statement was false. Also, only report tweets of national policy significance or statements about future actions. Leave out the "Lame" "Sad!" etc. Please.
32
They should leave in the Lame! and Sad! because that shows how immature Trump is. Sooner or later it will sink in to the public that Trump is Lame! Sad!
11
There is truth and there is falsehood and a false statement is a lie. Updating the style guidelines to accommodate a "new age of discourse" will only embolden dissimulators and equivicaters. No, speak the truth plainly and in the simplest terms: Call a lie a lie, and those who utter falsehoods are liars. Some things don't need updating or window dressing.
5
A lie us usually defined as "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." It is abundantly clear that Mr. Trump intends to deceive each time he speaks or tweets, so the word is appropriate.
1
This is habituation to his lies, the diminution of outrage after repeated lies, blunders, instances of harassment. In the same way the Rodney King defense kept playing the video of the beating to jurors, over and over again, until they became inured to the unspeakable violence, ultimately resulting in acquittal.
We must call out Donald Trump each time he lies - each.. and.. every... time !!!!!
We must call out Donald Trump each time he lies - each.. and.. every... time !!!!!
76
It wasn't smart or fast-thinking to call him for a response. You should have known he'd "hop on the phone" AND continue the lie. C'mon NYT, lose the false equivalency and re-commit yourself to your mission. Anything else is just gimmickry which we cannot afford.
112
What you fail to mention is that the Times and other media have CHANGED the tone of their coverage of Trump since he won, giving him the benefit of the doubt where there IS no doubt.
150
Oh, they are still furious and hate Trump....but you are correct, that their basic underlying quality is that of "toadying sycophants" (to get stories and access), so after the election....most of the NYT elite pundits came crawling to Trump DESPITE having hated him and attacked him 5 times a day for the last year.
So basically: the NYT staffers have no character or morals, let alone any consistency or honor.
So basically: the NYT staffers have no character or morals, let alone any consistency or honor.
Mocking is childish in every manner.
14
Thank you, Liz. Keep at it. The media has to learn how to deal with this phenomenon, lest it become an enabler.
22
Right on!
3
Why didn't the NYT do a rewrite on this?
Surely they owe their subscribers honesty regarding events that take place, not partial truth. You become just like Trump when you only partially cover a story and pick and chooose what you want to publish.
Surely they owe their subscribers honesty regarding events that take place, not partial truth. You become just like Trump when you only partially cover a story and pick and chooose what you want to publish.
41
PE: 'In its main story of Streep’s speech, it referred to Trump “appearing to mock” a disabled reporter at The Times.'
Interpretation is always a matter of OPINION, so the Times should be commended for neutral reporting. It is not the job of the Times to interpret Trump's gestures. Leave the interpretation to sources.
PE: "... as most anyone who looks at the video would see ..."
There are videos showing Trump using similar gestures in other speeches, a fact the Times failed to discover. Search Youtube for "Serge Kovaleski Trump". Note, in particular, that Ann Coulter gives a different interpretation of Trump's gestures by referring to a scene in the 2008 movie "Tropic Thunder" (the scene is also on Youtube).
Since a previous post on another topic was censored, I am intentionally not providing exact references.
Interpretation is always a matter of OPINION, so the Times should be commended for neutral reporting. It is not the job of the Times to interpret Trump's gestures. Leave the interpretation to sources.
PE: "... as most anyone who looks at the video would see ..."
There are videos showing Trump using similar gestures in other speeches, a fact the Times failed to discover. Search Youtube for "Serge Kovaleski Trump". Note, in particular, that Ann Coulter gives a different interpretation of Trump's gestures by referring to a scene in the 2008 movie "Tropic Thunder" (the scene is also on Youtube).
Since a previous post on another topic was censored, I am intentionally not providing exact references.
6
Please!! As others have said, call a LIE a LIE! Stop covering this sad excuse for a "president" (thank you for the quote, suggestion, Mr. Blow) as if he were any other president elect. He is not. Almost everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, an insult, or worse. He needs to be called out on it repeatedly and aggressively, every single time he makes a false statement. He has no class, no grace, no manners, clearly no intellect and his behavior is like that of a spoiled teenage boy. He is an embarrassment to our country and to the office of the President. Please NYTimes, stop giving this bully a forum for his ridiculous tweets and start holding all of your reporters and editors accountable to vigorously oppose his lies and print the truth! We, your readers, are sick of the restrained approach you have repeatedly taken. Bravo to Meryl Streep, the cast of Hamilton and any and all public figures who continue stand up to him. His pathetic response to Ms. Streep's speech just proved her point and showed him for what he really is, a classless bully who is unfit to be POTUS.
83
The NYT and other media must stop accommodating Trump. Falsehoods need to be called out explicitly and almost as important diversions need to be flagged. Trump clearly uses his tweets to divert the news media from important stories, and like hyperactive toddlers the media jumps on the latest Trumpery.
22
Two things:
1) Editor Danielle Mattoon said: "The story was written under deadline pressure after midnight and we focused squarely on the news event at hand — Mr. Trump’s reaction to Meryl Streep — and should have properly rebutted Mr. Trump’s self-defense."
I am sick to death of NYT reporters and editors always giving some version of "doing the news is hard!!!" The job of the Times is to meet their deadline AND get it right. If the current crop of staffers can't do that then hire people who can.
2) Thank you, Ms. Spayd. This is the kind of stuff a Public Editor should be doing.
1) Editor Danielle Mattoon said: "The story was written under deadline pressure after midnight and we focused squarely on the news event at hand — Mr. Trump’s reaction to Meryl Streep — and should have properly rebutted Mr. Trump’s self-defense."
I am sick to death of NYT reporters and editors always giving some version of "doing the news is hard!!!" The job of the Times is to meet their deadline AND get it right. If the current crop of staffers can't do that then hire people who can.
2) Thank you, Ms. Spayd. This is the kind of stuff a Public Editor should be doing.
68
Our supine, sycophantic, running-scared, largely fact-free, entirely policy-free, ratings-/eyeballs-/advertising revenue-driven media -- including the New York Times -- were singularly responsible for getting this buffoon elected.
Yet, the irony is, he and followers spit on you and think you're a bunch of liars and losers. You have, as a profession, not only very little respect from the outside world, but self-respect.
Think about that. Sad.
Yet, the irony is, he and followers spit on you and think you're a bunch of liars and losers. You have, as a profession, not only very little respect from the outside world, but self-respect.
Think about that. Sad.
13
Dangerous Donald is famous for lashing back at detractors with venom. And no-one wants be be bitten by a serpent. But The Times staff must put on thick trousers and cover this bully and liar until he is taken down.
20
Thanks so much for not letting this go unnoticed. All publications need to be much more rigorous about responding to unsubstantiated claims by people in power in the post-fact, fake news infested era we find ourselves in.
11
Why are you thanking the public editor? It was only because she was inundated with complaints from readers that she was forced to respond. And she excused what The Times did, pretending that because other papers wrote the same thing, The Times gets a pass.
Thanks for nothing!!
Thanks for nothing!!
2
Trump makes spastic gestures denigrating someone who has a physical disability that is beyond that persons control. Classic bully tactics trying to rally an audience to his side. A 70 year old man cannot conduct himself as an adult, much less as a professional of any type, much less as a statesman or US president. Isn't it ironic that the bleating tweeter can disparage someone's physical disability when he has a far more serious mental disability. And I can't even speak to those who rally in support of him.
28
Unbelievable that the paper would let this happen, after everything thus far.
17
Agreed. This publication has sunk mightily from the "paper of record" to the state it is now in. I cannot remember ever seeing more hand-wringing, prevarication, and missed opportunities in 51 years of reading the Times.
4
There are videos going back to 2005 showing Trump using the same mannerisms to mock others, including himself. He used the same gestures to mock Ted Cruz in 2016.
So the question is, did Trump mock the reporter because he was disabled? Or is this merely a mannerism Trump takes on when mocking others? Is this seemingly exonerating evidence "fake news" concocted by Trump supporters? Or is the NY Times and other left-leaning "news" organizations ignoring exculpatory evidence?
I don't know the answer but the NY Times could put this issue to rest (if it wanted to).
So the question is, did Trump mock the reporter because he was disabled? Or is this merely a mannerism Trump takes on when mocking others? Is this seemingly exonerating evidence "fake news" concocted by Trump supporters? Or is the NY Times and other left-leaning "news" organizations ignoring exculpatory evidence?
I don't know the answer but the NY Times could put this issue to rest (if it wanted to).
8
Perhaps, since Trump has known Kovaleski since the late 90's, Trump was - what is appropriate here - "inspired" by the reporter and has used him to denigrate others?
6
Agree with this. We cannot normalize his repeated and blatant false claims by simply reporting them. And he certainly didn't need to be solicited for a reaction - his tweet was his reaction to her statements. In every instance, when he speaks or tweets a provable falsehood, it should be reported as such. Even if we get 'falsehood fatigue', it should be noted on every occasion.
12
Thanks for calling attention to this abysmal failure of journalism, Ms. Spayd.
It's telling that the reporter, Patrick Healy, called Trump after midnight and not only immediately got him on the line, but unnecessarily restricted his questioning to getting Trump's idiotic but very click-able reaction to Meryl Streep's remarks. This is what I'd call a huge wasted opportunity, given all the other earth-shaking events Trump could have been confronted on. And even given the specific topic of disability, Healy should have asked Trump about his policies, such as whether he's on board with the terrible plan of the GOP sadists in Congress to cut Social Security benefits for the disabled.
It's also telling that the article was published in the Movies sub-section of the Arts section, and not under politics or health or national news. In other words, journalists and media organizations are continuing to treat Trump as his own reality show and not as the (truly frightening) leader of the free world. Instead, he was treated as just another megastar at a gossipy Golden Globes after-party. Again - very, very click-able.
This is one more indication that as far as mainstream news outlets are concerned, politics is a spectator sport and we the citizens are merely a helpless audience of "consumers."
It's telling that the reporter, Patrick Healy, called Trump after midnight and not only immediately got him on the line, but unnecessarily restricted his questioning to getting Trump's idiotic but very click-able reaction to Meryl Streep's remarks. This is what I'd call a huge wasted opportunity, given all the other earth-shaking events Trump could have been confronted on. And even given the specific topic of disability, Healy should have asked Trump about his policies, such as whether he's on board with the terrible plan of the GOP sadists in Congress to cut Social Security benefits for the disabled.
It's also telling that the article was published in the Movies sub-section of the Arts section, and not under politics or health or national news. In other words, journalists and media organizations are continuing to treat Trump as his own reality show and not as the (truly frightening) leader of the free world. Instead, he was treated as just another megastar at a gossipy Golden Globes after-party. Again - very, very click-able.
This is one more indication that as far as mainstream news outlets are concerned, politics is a spectator sport and we the citizens are merely a helpless audience of "consumers."
26
Much of Patrick Healy's reporting during the campaign was shoddy, so it's not surprising that this occurred.
Appreciate you coming around to this, albeit belatedly. This is a marked improvement from the Public Editor column that dismissed concerns of false equivalence on issues surrounding the 2 candidates.
16
Thank you so much to Danielle Mattoon for admitting a mistake and saying they should have done better.
10
"Lie" is a very strong word. Perhaps we could just say "intentionally false statement".
1
Donald Trump consistently and compulsively lies. His lies - as are Kellyanne Conway's - are dangerous to us all. He lies and bullies and mocks. Good grief, he's the President of the United States and he constantly lies!
Why whitewash his lies?
Why whitewash his lies?
13
It is crucial that over the next four years we call a spade a spade. Whether you like it or not Trump has been using a campaign of disinformation against the American public. Each and every incident must be flagged in clear unambiguous language.
17
A lie is a lie.
8
Ms. Spayd,
Respectfully, if you linked to the video of DT doing the impersonation of your colleague in the newspaper business, you really should link to the video of DT doing his impersonation of other people whom he thought was being dishonest about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4
Have you seen this video?
A lot of us have, and thus we believe that DT was doing some mocking... but he was not making fun of your friend's physical limitations. If you truly are in the business of not publishing fake news, you ought to acknowledge that the original reporter was correct.
Otherwise, you like Mr. Cohen and Mr. Rosenthal, are just repeating the myth. Thank you for publishing my comment, and allowing your readers to think for themselves. More information in the marketplace of opinions is good, even if you look down on mockery as a verbal technique.
Respectfully, if you linked to the video of DT doing the impersonation of your colleague in the newspaper business, you really should link to the video of DT doing his impersonation of other people whom he thought was being dishonest about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4
Have you seen this video?
A lot of us have, and thus we believe that DT was doing some mocking... but he was not making fun of your friend's physical limitations. If you truly are in the business of not publishing fake news, you ought to acknowledge that the original reporter was correct.
Otherwise, you like Mr. Cohen and Mr. Rosenthal, are just repeating the myth. Thank you for publishing my comment, and allowing your readers to think for themselves. More information in the marketplace of opinions is good, even if you look down on mockery as a verbal technique.
4
Trump's movements when talking about the reporter are much more exaggerated than when he made fun of the general, et al. But isn't the point that the president of the U.S. MAKES FUN of people in a childish way. That is ludicrous enough. Bending over backwards to justify his lies about the reporter is a waste of time. Even if he were not mimicking the reporter, Trump lied about him AND makes fun of many people in a childish way. The so-called leader of the free world. "Sad!!"
8
Midway, stop clouding the issue with not fake facts.
I am *not* a Trump supporter; I'm a lifelong Democrat. But I believe it's important to look at all sides of a story like this. While it's definitely possible Trump was mocking a disability, the details are not as clear-cut as stated here.
First of all, there are videos of Trump making this same strange hand motion while mocking other people. It's a childish, ridiculous mannerism that he randomly uses against other detractors, not just the disabled reporter in question. Secondly, no one in the audience would have been familiar with the reporter he was supposedly mocking (who, in fact, is not spastic as might be assumed.)
I think it's important to consider all sides of a controversy like this. In that spirit, here's a link to a pro-Trump website that presents a point-of-view that I hadn't heard before. One may not agree with the conclusions, but it's a well-presented and reasonable alternative account:
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock...
First of all, there are videos of Trump making this same strange hand motion while mocking other people. It's a childish, ridiculous mannerism that he randomly uses against other detractors, not just the disabled reporter in question. Secondly, no one in the audience would have been familiar with the reporter he was supposedly mocking (who, in fact, is not spastic as might be assumed.)
I think it's important to consider all sides of a controversy like this. In that spirit, here's a link to a pro-Trump website that presents a point-of-view that I hadn't heard before. One may not agree with the conclusions, but it's a well-presented and reasonable alternative account:
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock...
5
In response to the argument that Trump uses these gestures at other times: Lets assume Trump mocks multiple people, even those without a disability, by pretending they are spastic. Lets add in that his words indicate they are intellectually challenged. So Trump's way to attack people who criticise him is to act like they have cerebral palsy and are mentally handicapped. Better?
15
said Kovalesky MAY have reported that a few. people in Jersey city MAY have celebrated the downfall of the World Trade Center no where the thousands that Trump said he saw on TV which was never on TV Trump lied on that too
4
@GAYLE
No, of course that wouldn't be better. But I don't agree that Trump's gestures are imitations of spastic people or that his words are targeting the intellectually challenged. This is what the press has been telling us, but my point is it's more open to interpretation than we've been told. I'm not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but after reviewing multiple videos and reading his statements, my conclusion is just not the same as yours.
No, of course that wouldn't be better. But I don't agree that Trump's gestures are imitations of spastic people or that his words are targeting the intellectually challenged. This is what the press has been telling us, but my point is it's more open to interpretation than we've been told. I'm not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but after reviewing multiple videos and reading his statements, my conclusion is just not the same as yours.
I'm not surprised that some reporters just pass things along without fact checking. They've probably never dealt with someone as vile and manipulative as Donald Trump. People like him have the ability to convince you that the sky is red when it's obviously blue. I know, I was once married to someone just like Donald Trump.
3
Mr. Trump has proven, time after time, that he cannot take the heat. Why is such a person even allowed in the kitchen?
5
False equivalencies, and quoting Trump without context and clarification are equally dangerous. This behavior on part of the part of the media is partly why we have a Trump presidency.
Michael Rengel, the man from St. Louis in this article, articulated the danger of this issue well.
Michael Rengel, the man from St. Louis in this article, articulated the danger of this issue well.
10
Fairness, accuracy and neutrality are important journalistic goalposts.
On the other hand, with anyone from either party as dishonest and bullying as Trump, "balance" is a mirage, and a trap. Someone calling Trump out for dishonesty doesn't have to be "balanced" by giving him a platform to normalize his lies.
All said, if you insist on "balance," then balance his tweets with counter tweets from those who oppose him.
On the other hand, with anyone from either party as dishonest and bullying as Trump, "balance" is a mirage, and a trap. Someone calling Trump out for dishonesty doesn't have to be "balanced" by giving him a platform to normalize his lies.
All said, if you insist on "balance," then balance his tweets with counter tweets from those who oppose him.
3
What we need is for reporters or interviewers to call Trump out on the spot when he tells a lie - I await the day when a reporter/interviewer looks Trump in the eye on national television and says to him (out loud) "You're lying."
Trump is a liar, that is very clear - he lies more easily than he'd ever tell the truth.
What is necessary for newspapers and other media is that you NOT pussyfoot around (excuse the expression) Trump's lies, but call him out on them EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. Label his lies without fear or flinching. When he tells a lie, the headline should say "TRUMP'S LATEST LIE IS".
This should not be hard for journalists to understand, nor for editors and managers to implement.
Trump is a liar, that is very clear - he lies more easily than he'd ever tell the truth.
What is necessary for newspapers and other media is that you NOT pussyfoot around (excuse the expression) Trump's lies, but call him out on them EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. Label his lies without fear or flinching. When he tells a lie, the headline should say "TRUMP'S LATEST LIE IS".
This should not be hard for journalists to understand, nor for editors and managers to implement.
24
Yes, the Times screwed up. But at least it had the decency to admit it, albeit without calling Trump what he is: a big fat liar.
3
So deadline pressure excuses lousy journalism? Let's tell the cosmos in general what your cutoff time is for appropriate coverage of newsworthy events...
Why would straight news coverage--bolstered by collaborating, vetted-for-accuracy video--require Mr. Trump's opinion to be part of the story? He has previously denied mocking the reporter; it's been pretty clear that his denial doesn't fly.
But why was Ms. Streep's emotional speech something that needed rebuttal from Mr. Trump? It's nice that Hollywood is standing up against attacks by the powerful against the powerless. Where were they when Hillary Clinton was mocking and attacking Monica Lewinsky as a "narcissistic looney-tunes" rather than, more truthfully, as Mrs. Clinton's husband's partner in adultery?
I'm not a supporter or admirer of Trump; I proudly voted for "none of the above," as my state sensibly permits me to do. I am a woman, and have what I consider to be socially-responsible ethics and a personal commitment to justice. The journalistic standards of the NY Times have greatly failed us for many years now. These self-defensive rehashings of minor failures take our eyes off the bigger ones. But maybe that's your intent.
Why would straight news coverage--bolstered by collaborating, vetted-for-accuracy video--require Mr. Trump's opinion to be part of the story? He has previously denied mocking the reporter; it's been pretty clear that his denial doesn't fly.
But why was Ms. Streep's emotional speech something that needed rebuttal from Mr. Trump? It's nice that Hollywood is standing up against attacks by the powerful against the powerless. Where were they when Hillary Clinton was mocking and attacking Monica Lewinsky as a "narcissistic looney-tunes" rather than, more truthfully, as Mrs. Clinton's husband's partner in adultery?
I'm not a supporter or admirer of Trump; I proudly voted for "none of the above," as my state sensibly permits me to do. I am a woman, and have what I consider to be socially-responsible ethics and a personal commitment to justice. The journalistic standards of the NY Times have greatly failed us for many years now. These self-defensive rehashings of minor failures take our eyes off the bigger ones. But maybe that's your intent.
3
Get a grip, NYT. Fair coverage = True coverge. I am a hair's breadth away from switching to the Guardian. Not a threat just sad truth after 49 years of readership.
9
I agree with the commenters to date who call for the Times to, as Mr. Chisman puts it, define policies and strategies for dealing with this sort of "news". But I also believe very strongly that there was no need for the Times to call Mr. Trump for a "reaction" to Ms. Streep's words. The facts were what they were, the Times knew from its own records what those facts were, and if Mr. Trump chose to respond on his own (as surely he would because he has no ego control), then the Times could assess whether to report that response as news. In the event, there would have been, I hope, some hard thinking before deciding that a repeat of his denial was "news".
44
The fact is that there is financial incentive for new organizations to maintain an access to Trump, which Trump knows, and has exploited time and again. He will continue to do so, and the Times is clearly demonstrating that it is not immune to this dynamic, irrespective of any mild protestations by the public editor.
5
I am glad to see that the Times is starting to pay attention to this problem. Rather late in the game, but there will be an enormous need for "extreme vetting" of Mr. Trump's and his spokesperson's statements going forward. It would be a great service to Times readers if Ms. Spayd would talk with the editors and then describe in a future column the strategies and policies that Times reporters will use to deal with the challenge of reporting on soon-to-be President Trump's lies and historical revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists will have to match their vigilance and tenacity with Mr. Trump's shamelessness and contempt for the truth.
8
Ironically, Streep said in the very same speech that the media has a responsibility to hold him to account.
130
And start calling out the people who are lying for him as the pathetic enablers that they are.
71
The Gaslighting Of the People.
Anyone who has worked with a sociopath knows this territory. Trump is a prime example. Don't expect the spots to change- ever.
Trump has hired a willing fool Conway to amplify his lies. Believe your own eyes people- this is going to be a disaster for our democratic processes.
Anyone who has worked with a sociopath knows this territory. Trump is a prime example. Don't expect the spots to change- ever.
Trump has hired a willing fool Conway to amplify his lies. Believe your own eyes people- this is going to be a disaster for our democratic processes.
71
The NYT needs to get a lot more vigilant about its reporting on Trump. Lies, distortions, and hypocrisy by any public, elected figure has to be called out - loudly - even more so the more powerful they are. This is what we depend on the media to do!
40
Going one level deeper, as far as I can tell, Trump still claims that (a) thousands of Muslims in New Jersey danced on 9/11, and (2) he saw it on television. Both of these, of course, are unquestionably lies.
My guess is that his original "memory" was based on televised scenes of the reaction of Palestinians during Iraqi missile attacks on Israel during the first Gulf War (all Arabs look alike, and the rooftops of Jerusalem are a close match for Jersey City). Of course, he would never have dreamed of checking this "fact" before publicly attacking American Muslims for disloyalty; and he would never never never admit that he had been wrong. His original reckless mistake, if it was that, becomes a conscious, repeated lie.
My guess is that his original "memory" was based on televised scenes of the reaction of Palestinians during Iraqi missile attacks on Israel during the first Gulf War (all Arabs look alike, and the rooftops of Jerusalem are a close match for Jersey City). Of course, he would never have dreamed of checking this "fact" before publicly attacking American Muslims for disloyalty; and he would never never never admit that he had been wrong. His original reckless mistake, if it was that, becomes a conscious, repeated lie.
12
I think the Times has to call a meeting of its editors and reporters to define policies and strategies that will prevent Trump or anyone else from getting away with this sort of thing. And it must stop carrying his tweets unless they are accompanied by some type of action. If he just rants online it's not news; if he actually does something it is.
152
I disagree with the suggestion to stop reporting the tweets. Trump's tweets are part of the story, and often enough, the damning part. I don't look at Twitter so I'm trusting the Times to tell me when the news is important enough to consider. Thank you.
2
Really? the fact that you just can't say that he lied doesn't make this attempt to clear it up any better
77
The NYT, and all other journalists, need to stand firm and call a lie a lie, do not 'accept' or legitimize anything other than the facts and the truth. Neutrality is not an option - facts are facts.
164
In the years ahead of us I think it is vital that our Newspapers carefully fact-check this type of reporting. We have seen the ease with which dis-information sways people's thinking. Context counts.
38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc - Exactly.
1
Please. For the love of God. A lie is a lie is a lie. Not a debunking! Language matters. If the NYTimes had called this nincompoop on the carpet throughout the campaign, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. L-I-E! I MEAN, IT IS ON TAPE. If we don't call him out on things that can be clearly seen and replayed, in front of the eyes of the world, when do we talk about it? This is too important to cover with the mantel of politesse.
255
One other item that calls for major comment is that President Elect Trump argues that he did not mock a disabled reporter, and that he never would do such a thing, and at the same time mocks and bullies Meryl Streep by claiming she is over rated. Sad! Sad? It is very sad that we now have to endure a man of such disgraceful instincts as our President! Lord, help us!!!
112
Yet Meryl Streep mocked and bullied the President Elect in an audience of tens of millions of people...or is that okay?
The Left best stop endlessly whining about every little thing and focus on the big picture, else they will get trounced again in 2020.
The Left best stop endlessly whining about every little thing and focus on the big picture, else they will get trounced again in 2020.
1
She did not mock, nor bully. (She could have mentioned hand size, the orange glow, the thin-skinned petulance. That would have been mocking. She could have spoken ominously, threatening retaliation. That would have been bullying.) Instead, she objected. She opined about behaviors she finds objectionable. Hers is an example of the obligation a democratic citizenry has, regardless political leaning.
4
@FSM
Meryl Streep "bullied" Trump? You are mistaking well founded, factual, correct, legitimate criticism for bullying. Get over it.
By the way, the only person who got trounced was Trump in the popular election. He lost by 3,000,000 votes, or are you one of those people who listens to the lies told by the extreme right (read Republicans).
Meryl Streep "bullied" Trump? You are mistaking well founded, factual, correct, legitimate criticism for bullying. Get over it.
By the way, the only person who got trounced was Trump in the popular election. He lost by 3,000,000 votes, or are you one of those people who listens to the lies told by the extreme right (read Republicans).
1
The New York Times.
Sad.
Sad.
26
The Times has to do some consciousness raising among its reporters: there have been many examples of this kind of neutrality just this past week - long after it has taken itself to task for reporting "false equivalence" & "fake news". Lies are lies & reporters & editors should be sensitive to them.
186