New York Times editorial board goes full authoritarian.....

[MMC]

The New York Times’ editorial board, which published a piece this week titled “The Law Is Coming, Mr. Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/opinion/trump-michael-cohen-raid.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur),” would do well to think hard on this passage from Bolt's play. The board is correct to challenge President Trump’s dubious claim (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/983662868540346371?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) Tuesday that a recent FBI raid on his personal lawyer’s office represents a violation of attorney-client privilege. They write, "The privilege is one of the most sacrosanct in the American legal system, but it does not protect communications in furtherance of a crime.”


The paper is terribly mistaken, however, to endorse the insidious logic that only a guilty person would protest a raid by government officials.


“[O]ne might ask, if this is all a big witch hunt and Mr. Trump has nothing illegal or untoward to hide, why does he care about the privilege in the first place? The answer, of course, is that he has a lot to hide,” the editorial reads.


You can believe that Trump is guilty of a great many things without also endorsing the idea that only a criminal would protest a perceived violation of personal privacy, individual liberties, etc.



You laugh, but there is little daylight between this and the position pushed by the Times’ editorial board. It's laughable, yes, and dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that the Times itself disputed this sort of thing vigorously in 2006 during the Bush-era NSA spy programs (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/spying-on-ordinary-americans.html?mtrref=freebeacon.com&gwh=2F052C372018EB6A3BD699A420E52E1F&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion). If you subordinate all else to the zealous pursuit of a perceived good, you’ll have nothing left if someone decides similarly that your prosecution (or persecution) is a matter of righteousness.


Always side with the rule of law, for your own safety's sake......snip~


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-editorial-board-goes-full-authoritarian


As usual the NY Slimes sets their own selves out. What will the NY Slimes do when the American People decide to come for them. Then act like the NY Slimes and not care about laws.

[Standing Wolf]

What will the NY Slimes do when the American People decide to come for them.

Meaning...?

[Tahuyaman]

The NY Times is the official voice of the DNC.

[MMC]

Meaning...?

It was quite clear Wolf.....

What will the NY Slimes do when the American People decide to come for them. Then act like the NY Slimes and not care about laws......snip~

[MMC]

The NY Times is the official voice of the DNC.

Them.....WAPO, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC etc etc.

[Standing Wolf]

It was quite clear Wolf.....

What will the NY Slimes do when the American People decide to come for them. Then act like the NY Slimes and not care about laws......snip~

I think you know what I'm asking, M. Please do me the courtesy of not being all vague and cagey.

Exactly how do you envision "the American People" coming for the New York Times? Are we talking pitchforks and burning torches? Lawyers with three-piece suits and briefcases? What?

[Tahuyaman]

Them.....WAPO, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC etc etc.

They are all cut from the same cloth. You can't tell the difference between any of them. They report the same stories and they all report them from the same perspective.


They all ignore the same stories too.

[Tahuyaman]

There was a time when these news agencies would be all over the obvious corruption of the DOJ and FBI during the Obama era. Now it's dismissed.

[gamewell45]

There was a time when these news agencies would be all over the obvious corruption of the DOJ and FBI during the Obama era. Now it's dismissed.

There's no money or ratings involved as such no interest in spending any money, time or resources covering those stories; leave it up to bloggers and other internet news sites to cover the stories. Good business practice.

[MisterVeritis]

I think you know what I'm asking, M. Please do me the courtesy of not being all vague and cagey.

Exactly how do you envision "the American People" coming for the New York Times? Are we talking pitchforks and burning torches? Lawyers with three-piece suits and briefcases? What?
Where does one find pitchforks and torches these days?

[MMC]

I think you know what I'm asking, M. Please do me the courtesy of not being all vague and cagey.

Exactly how do you envision "the American People" coming for the New York Times? Are we talking pitchforks and burning torches? Lawyers with three-piece suits and briefcases? What?

All means Wolf. You have seen how the public gets when Riot, uhm protesting.

[MMC]

They are all cut from the same cloth. You can't tell the difference between any of them. They report the same stories and they all report them from the same perspective.


They all ignore the same stories too.

Yep, Newsbusters and MediaBias already busted out how they are communicating with each other.

[Common]

The NYTs hated trump long before he ran for Potus, they would love nothing less than the worst to befall him. Same goes for Bloomberg news, theyve had a decades long feud.

[Standing Wolf]

All means Wolf. You have seen how the public gets when Riot, uhm protesting.

Am I to assume that you're not going to answer the question, M? You seem intent on being "cute" with your answers. I'm simply asking that you describe, specifically, what you mean by the American People "coming" for the NY Times. If you don't know, just say so...we'll understand.

[MMC]

Am I to assume that you're not going to answer the question, M? You seem intent on being "cute" with your answers. I'm simply asking that you describe, specifically, what you mean by the American People "coming" for the NY Times. If you don't know, just say so...we'll understand.


What do you think it is saying if people are going to play like the NY Slimes and not think about any laws? I expect to see them go after their Editors, their reporters and all associated to them. Physically, mentally and to even include legal means and trying to destroy their organization. Their peoples careers, even the structure they work out of.

Already they are losing subscriptions. Already they are losing money. Already they have lost credibility. Already the Slimes shows they are against the majority of the people in this nation.


That shouldn't have been to hard for you to figure out. Tell us now how you don't think people want to see those at the Slimes suffer and cause them pain.

[Standing Wolf]

What do you think it is saying if people are going to play like the NY Slimes and not think about any laws? I expect to see them go after their Editors, their reporters and all associated to them. Physically, mentally and to even include legal means and trying to destroy their organization. Their peoples careers, even the structure they work out of.

Already they are losing subscriptions. Already they are losing money. Already they have lost credibility. Already the Slimes shows they are against the majority of the people in this nation.


That shouldn't have been to hard for you to figure out. Tell us now how you don't think people want to see those at the Slimes suffer and cause them pain.

I suspected that you were hinting at physically attacking NY Times employees, but I didn't want to presume too much. I thought it only fair that you say it for yourself - and now you have. Thanks.

[MMC]

I suspected that you were hinting at physically attacking NY Times employees, but I didn't want to presume too much. I thought it only fair that you say it for yourself - and now you have. Thanks.
Oh I definitely would like to see it. But then I am around Mid West People that just don't give a shit about those in NY.


Of course you knew once that part about not following any laws was added in. That even an illiberal could figure it out.


But then I figured you were hoping for more than my seeing it.

[Tahuyaman]

There's no money or ratings involved as such no interest in spending any money, time or resources covering those stories; leave it up to bloggers and other internet news sites to cover the stories. Good business practice.

I don't think that's the case. They don't go after corruption when they support the perpetrators of that corruption.

[gamewell45]

I don't think that's the case. They don't go after corruption when they support the perpetrators of that corruption.

I suppose you could make that argument; I've been wrong before, however I'm giving my viewpoint based on over 40 years working in the broadcast business in the number one market.

[Tahuyaman]

I suppose you could make that argument; I've been wrong before, however I'm giving my viewpoint based on over 40 years working in the broadcast business in the number one market.


Then why are they so disinterested in all the credible evidence to corrupt activity by the previous administration?

[gamewell45]

Then why are they so disinterested in all the credible evidence to corrupt activity by the previous administration?

Most likely because they don't feel that spending the time, resources and money on covering that story will not generate enough interest by the viewing/listening public whether we agree with them or not. Unfortunately the news media has become, over the past 30+ years, more concerned with profits and ratings as opposed to reporting the news objectively. This is what happens when you have lawyers and accountants running the business; most of them have no clue about reporting the new, operations, engineering and programming.

When I first broke into the business, they all would have jumped all over the story and you would have news people crawling all over the place reporting on it. Unfortunately it all changed over a few decades; just another reason why I'm glad I retired.

[Tahuyaman]

Most likely because they don't feel that spending the time, resources and money on covering that story will not generate enough interest by the viewing/listening public whether we agree with them or not. Unfortunately the news media has become, over the past 30+ years, more concerned with profits and ratings as opposed to reporting the news objectively. This is what happens when you have lawyers and accountants running the business; most of them have no clue about reporting the new, operations, engineering and programming.

When I first broke into the business, they all would have jumped all over the story and you would have news people crawling all over the place reporting on it. Unfortunately it all changed over a few decades; just another reason why I'm glad I retired.


They are are disinterested because they are allies of the previous administration. They stopped being journalist, they became advocates.

[Common]

The NYTs is struggling to stay alive, their newsroom is a fraction of what it was and their distribution is getting smaller all the time. They have resorted to sensationalism to get a little attention. The New York Times fully realizes it only speaks to the most liberal of NYers and thats who they of course play too.

In constrast the Wall Street Journal the antithesis of the New York Times is doing just fine