#Thread: We need to talk about the @nytimes. I believe it's a conversation that is long overdue. We need to consider seriously that despite some excellent investigative journalism, something about their leadership is off. They appear to be compromised, even complicit at times.
Before I get into the details, I think it's important to frame this against the backdrop of that corruption: Donald Trump. He has been extremely vocal about them in a way he hasn't been with any other print publication, and in my opinion that is very much deliberate.
Consider for example that he rarely mentions the @WashingtonPost who has by all metrics been holding him to account. Donald knows that shining a light on them would potentially increase its readership. He only bullies those he believes he can bend to his will.
He has the New York Times on a leash. Consider how often @maggieNYT covers for him, or attempts to paint a more positive light on the troubling news that comes out. Couple this with the fact the editors made a real issue out of their journalists "making her job harder."
How were they doing so? By criticizing him on social media. And remember, they won a Pulitzer for a story distancing Donald from Russia. These are small things compared to what I see as the bigger issues. The bigger problem is their sabatoging of their investigative journalists.
Why did they release their scathing investigation of Donald's tax fraud in the middle of the confirmation fight taking place? There weren't a pair of eyes in this country who didn't have that issue front and center, often quite viscerally. So why release the report then?
This investigation covered a significant period in the past. There was no reason it couldn't have held for a few more days. I can only think of one reason to release it then: to lessen its impact. They quite literally sabatoged their own journalists and the public by doing this.
I suspect there's a struggle taking place within the New York Times. There are passionate reporters committed to uncovering the truth, and then there are editors or managers seeking to minimize it. How else do you explain all of this?
They often soften language for Donald. Instead of calling something a "trade war" they called it a "trade battle." They rarely explicitly call him a liar. They've rarely had a kind word to say about Hillary. They say Democrats have no leadership, no narrative, and no backbone.
They often paint the Democratic Party as responsible for much of our situation. They're apparently a party in perpetual disarray. They use the "both sides" argument. They refuse to recognize one party plays by the rules and the other doesn't.
They fail to put what's happening to us in any sort of context. There's a very real double standard. They aren't calling out the corruption or the chipping away at our institutions. They obfuscate and they ignore.
And they do this while reaping huge financial rewards from liberal-minded subscribers. They do "just enough" to prevent you from finally unsubscribing (something you've probably considered many times in the past two years).
Considering the importance of journalism, especially at a time like now, I don't take any joy in saying these things. I'm a strong advocate of journalism, especially investigative journalism. And they have some great journalists in that regard.
But something stinks at the @nytimes and we need to discover what that is. How many stories are they sitting on right now, just waiting for an opportunity to publish when it will be the least damaging to Donald Trump? Where is the rot and how do we excise it?
@nytimes (I personally believe it's unlikely Donald Trump will be brought down by law enforcement, especially now. The odds his co-conspirators will skate has increased as well. I believe the only way we'll see accountability is through a political process and an honest press.)
@nytimes (Bottom line: their incredibly talented investigative journalists are being sabatoged from within, and they go to great lengths to normalize this presidency while often subtly demonizing the opposition.)
@nytimes (I have similar concerns about CNN, and for similar reasons. Donald villifies them, which increases their viewership, and the network has become a display of chaos and appeasement.)
@nytimes (I think it's really important to recognize this pattern. Rachel @Maddow is one of the most popular programs on television and one of the most critical of Donald. He never mentions her. Think about that and take note of who and where he places the focus. It is revealing.)
@nytimes @maddow (As a final aside: this is a very old tactic of Donald's. In the 1980's he bullied the mayor into appeasement, culminating in a speech praising him in profoundly gushing terms, something that's now become commonplace.)
@nytimes @maddow I'm going to share some tweets below written by others that give greater depth and perspective related to the topic of this thread, often more eloquently than my own writing...
Even more confirmation of my thoughts on the nytimes. I find it all so disheartening.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robert Samuel White

Robert Samuel White Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rswfire

Dec 21, 2017
#Thread: Here's a phrase we don't hear often enough anymore, "The Tea Party." We don't hear it anymore because they have become the Republican Party. And they are destroying the country they claim to love. Here are some facts about the Tea Party you may not know.
The Tea Party came into power during the 2010 midterm elections. They had nearly 150 candidates for Congress that year, running for both the House and the Senate. Over 30% of them won their races, sometimes unseating an incumbent Republican or taking a reliably Democratic seat.
Nikki Haley, the current Ambassador to the United Nations, was one of those candidates. She defeated three Republicans in that primary and the then-current U.S. Representative in a run-off election.
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(