Why the (once) failing New York Times loves Trump

[Beet]

The paper that disgraced itself in a rush to cheerlead the Iraq war and partnered with Bannon to attack Hillary Clinton loves Donald Trump, their investment in him has paid off:

[Santander]

This is not particularly useful information in a vacuum. Do you have information on their print subscription dropoffs?

[Reaganfan]

Gotta love how one man has had the ability to change the entire planet. I love it.

[Beet]

This is not particularly useful information in a vacuum. Do you have information on their print subscription dropoffs?

They are certainly dropping off at the same rate, but it doesn't matter, as overall earnings are up and Times corporate undoubtedly views digital as their future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly. By strengthening the corporate establishment and consolidated media.

[Santander]

This is not particularly useful information in a vacuum. Do you have information on their print subscription dropoffs?

They are certainly dropping off at the same rate, but it doesn't matter, as overall earnings are up and Times corporate undoubtedly views digital as their future.

Well, of course digital is the future. (actually, it's the present) But the main reason I was interested in print dropoffs is that as a news organization, advertising and subscription revenues pay the bills, but the number of eyeballs that read your stories play a big role in determining how relevant you are.

[Devout Centrist]

Really? This is best you have? I wonder why a paper might want to get early access to a potential story about someone running for President.

Did they run any articles "confirming" what's written in Clinton Cash? Did they try to sow doubt in people's minds about Hillary using that book's claims? If no to both of those questions, then you have no case.

[Santander]

Really? This is best you have? I wonder why a paper might want to get early access to a potential story about someone running for President.

Did they run any articles "confirming" what's written in Clinton Cash? Did they try to sow doubt in people's minds about Hillary using that book's claims? If no to both of those questions, then you have no case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[Beet]

Really? This is best you have? I wonder why a paper might want to get early access to a potential story about someone running for President.

Did they run any articles "confirming" what's written in Clinton Cash? Did they try to sow doubt in people's minds about Hillary using that book's claims? If no to both of those questions, then you have no case.

They and the Post sign an "exclusive deal" with the hyperpartisan author for access to his book  that cited fake press releases and inflated speaking fees, in exchange for only following the slant he wanted. That's so unusual, even the Times' own Public Editor criticized it. Their campaign coverage certainly was devastating for Clinton, blowing open the negative image of her as corrupt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/politics/election-clinton-foundation.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html

[Badger]

Gotta love how one man has had the ability to change the entire planet. I love it.

So did Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. Shouldn't in the quality of the change involved matter at all?

[Reaganfan]

Gotta love how one man has had the ability to change the entire planet. I love it.

So did Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. Shouldn't in the quality of the change involved matter at all?

Of course, don't be stupid. But strong leaders are needed in the world. We have catered lately to the weak and indeed, we have been good societies, but strength is a great leadership attribute, too. Isn't it?

[Coraxion]

So much for the "liberal media".

[Reaganfan]

So much for the "liberal media".

I must admit, I loved how every speech he gave anywhere pre-empted Hillary's last year during the campaign.

"While Secretary Clinton speaks to her supporters...oh yes....sorry John...Donald Trump is speaking now, let's listen in."

Then 30 minutes of Trump. It was wonderful. Now he is the most powerful person on the planet. God what a good election.

[Reaganfan]

Apropos of nothing, it feels like the Trumpists are clinging to the election as a safety blanket and ignoring everything that came after it. It's quite interesting.

TRUMPISTS: "WE WON THE ELECTION."

*complete disaster of a first six months ensues, as even Naso acknowledges*

TRUMPISTS: "REMEMBER THE ELECTION!"

You realize that if the election were held tomorrow, he might well win again. I'm guessing he'd take Ohio, quite possibly Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and Pennsylvania all over again. Wisconsin too. He'd win despite you all claiming what a disaster he's been.

He just had 20,000+ at a damn rally an hour away from me two nights ago. It's like we are living in alternate realities, only mine is real.

[Reaganfan]

The President, if he were remotely - and be honest - as successful as you imagine him in your dreams - would be far more successful six months in. And yet, your major counterpoint is his ... Electoral college victory?

YES. A win is a win is a win.

[Santander]

Admit it, Naso, straight up. You want to beat the left more than advance the Right's goals. Or well, actually you did. 

This is the goal of the vast majority of conservatives.

[Reaganfan]

Admit it, Naso, straight up. You want to beat the left more than advance the Right's goals. Or well, actually you did. 

This is the goal of the vast majority of conservatives.

No, it's the goals of nihilists who think that beating the Left is somehow about not advancing our own agenda. This is the problem with the modern American Republican Party or rather the Trumpists who seized it.

It's also the hand of losers. If you're just stopping them when they win and cement their gains, it's going to be about stopping THAT. And then when they win again and cement even more gains, it'll just be about stopping THAT. That line is that line, but oh wait, it's not really the line where we make a stand.

I seem to find that more progress has been made by President Trump himself than the do-nothing spineless congressional Republicans.

[ProudModerate2]

He just had 20,000+ at a damn rally an hour away from me two nights ago. It's like we are living in alternate realities, only mine is real.

LOL.
Someone still talking about The Clown's "rally" size.
As if that means anything.

[Reaganfan]

https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/25/polls-dont-tell-tale-trumps-support-deep-here2/

[Coraxion]

Apropos of nothing, it feels like the Trumpists are clinging to the election as a safety blanket and ignoring everything that came after it. It's quite interesting.

TRUMPISTS: "WE WON THE ELECTION."

*complete disaster of a first six months ensues, as even Naso acknowledges*

TRUMPISTS: "REMEMBER THE ELECTION!"

You realize that if the election were held tomorrow, he might well win again. I'm guessing he'd take Ohio, quite possibly Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and Pennsylvania all over again. Wisconsin too. He'd win despite you all claiming what a disaster he's been.

He just had 20,000+ at a damn rally an hour away from me two nights ago. It's like we are living in alternate realities, only mine is real.

No, Clinton would win by 7 points.

But I get it. "FAKE NEWS LIBRUL MEDIA RIGGED POLLINOG SAID HILLARY WOULD WIN!!1!111!!" lol

[Devout Centrist]

Admit it, Naso, straight up. You want to beat the left more than advance the Right's goals. Or well, actually you did. 

This is the goal of the vast majority of conservatives.

No, it's the goals of nihilists who think that beating the Left is somehow about not advancing our own agenda. This is the problem with the modern American Republican Party or rather the Trumpists who seized it.

It's also the hand of losers. If you're just stopping them when they win and cement their gains, it's going to be about stopping THAT. And then when they win again and cement even more gains, it'll just be about stopping THAT. That line is that line, but oh wait, it's not really the line where we make a stand.

I seem to find that more progress has been made by President Trump himself than the do-nothing spineless congressional Republicans.

What progress exactly? His executive action has been relatively muted and his strongest measures have been gutted by the courts.

The ten bills Congress has passed thus far are much more inspiring.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gotta love how one man has had the ability to change the entire planet. I love it.

So did Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. Shouldn't in the quality of the change involved matter at all?

Of course, don't be stupid. But strong leaders are needed in the world. We have catered lately to the weak and indeed, we have been good societies, but strength is a great leadership attribute, too. Isn't it?

Yes strength is great leadership attribute, but it is one Trump utterly lacks. Like all bullies, he struts and huff and preys upon those who can't fight back, yet when the going gets tough, he gets going.