May 24, 2016

"In the name of all that is holy, please explain why you decided that this empty piece of Trump worship is worthy of publication."

"This is revolting celebrity sycophancy at its worst."/"I am so sick of the NYT Newsy-Entertainment Department treating this loathsome creep like someone worthy of attention."/"This is not an article about anything worthy of print."/"NYT, why oh why are you consistently running front page above-the-crease article... I think we all understand by now that he's not a traditional politician...."/"OMG make it stop. 'Donald J. Trump has turned the campaign news conference, typically a dreary affair, into a riveting display of self-promotion.' What? Riveting? Why is the Times diving into the cesspool of worst possible media "news" coverage head first? Who CARES about his attempts to bamboozle with a spectacle? Riveting?? As if he gets and A+ for effort? As if he is somehow on top of this? Shrewd showmanship?? Did I really just READ that? Shrewd for who?"/"Stop. No really just STOP. Please resist the urge to give this buffoon more coverage than he requires. He's playing you (the media) for the chumps you are."

Top-rated comments at a NYT article titled "Lights, Camera, Trump," which had me surprised when I got to the end of the page, past the all the many pictures. I spent some time looking for a link to click to a second page and scrolling even after I'd hit the bottom to see if I could make more material appear.

54 comments:

Mike Sylwester said...

This is revolting celebrity sycophancy at its worst. .... Please resist the urge to give this buffoon more coverage than he requires. He's playing you (the media) for the chumps you are.

This is what happens when Scientific Progressives are allowed to post comments about newspaper articles.

knox said...

Aforementioned comments summed up in 3 words: "How dare you."

Henry said...

The offended commenters have a point, but by commenting, they answer the question. Please, chumps, resist the urge to click.

iqvoice said...

What amuses me is that this same level of media over-attention was visible approximately eight years ago. The subject of the attention was a fellow by the name of Obama, and at the time these same nytimes commentators were wetting themselves with excitement after each new article.

Henry said...

Those are some rather loving photographs. Visual people love stagecraft.

victoria said...

Couldn't have said it better myself.


vicki from Pasadena

Nonapod said...

Your hatred only makes him stronger.

Virgil Hilts said...

Trump = the Painting of Kramer:
I sense great vulnerability. A man-child crying out for love. An innocent orphan in the post-modern world. / I see a parasite. A sexually depraved miscreant who is seeking only to gratify his basest and most immediate urges. / His struggle is man's struggle. He lifts my spirit. /

He is a loathesome, offensive brute. Yet I can't look away. . .

David Begley said...

The election of Trump just might save the failing NYT.

Quaestor said...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Vicky is afeared of the Hillary-less future.

eric said...

Ann, you seem to care a great deal about typos in your blog articles.

"past the all the many pictures"

rhhardin said...

The NYT published a favorable article about Trump and you'll never guess what happened next.

eric said...

One of those photos has the "assaulted" Michelle Fields in it.

Fields has gone to work for the Huffington post.

No surprise.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Oh, Drudge. You wicked, wicked man...

rhhardin said...

Andrew Klavan applies the Homeric epithet "former newspaper" to the NYT.

Many amusing podcasts at the link, with movie criticism and Cruz over Trump commentary until Trump won.

He does not yet see that the ability to beat the media's incessant political correctness in the media itself is the key quality needed. Without that, no problem can be talked about let alone solved.

Cruz would have been just another wonk with strange beliefs.

Gusty Winds said...

Isn't it just awesome?

buwaya said...

"The election of Trump just might save the failing NYT."

Well, the NYT exists as a political tool, or weapon. Thats its main function and justification these days. Without that, nothing.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Of course I could say the same about the endless puff pieces the times uses to prop up Hillary's bloated carcass.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

Having read the piece, which is a hit piece, no question, it seems that its acid may have been over-subtle for some of the readers, who will settle for nothing less than pure hydrochloric.

traditionalguy said...

Most hating of Trump seems at root to be a hatred of his positive attitude that does not see a hierarchy of natural superiors. It is Thomas Jefferson's old radical claim that all men are created equal being asserted in public.

The result is a visceral reaction from the men who see themselves as a part of a superior group.

And then the cheeky Trump shows them he is the better man at competitive endeavors. Arrrggg!

Sam L. said...

Perhaps if he wins, they'll say Local Boy Makes Good. I suspect, however, WE'RE DOOMED.

rhhardin said...

All men are equal in the eyes of the Loud.

rehajm said...

That's Trump worship?

..and...as if NYT not mentioning him makes him invisible.

Original Mike said...

I will say one thing about the election of President Trump. It will make all the right people's heads explode.

rehajm said...

Bite the hand that feeds you, whydontcha.

n.n said...

The pro-native outlook is also enraging the European left-wing.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I wonder if any of the lefties who read and comment there are honest enough to compare the coverage of the Trump and Obama candidacies.

Original Mike said...

"I wonder if ..."

No you don't.

Hagar said...

As a "disreputable candidate for the presidency of the United States,"

how does Donald Trump compare with Andrew Jackson?

buwaya said...

"how does Donald Trump compare with Andrew Jackson?"

This is difficult. Obviously Trump hasn't the baggage of the various private duels, shootings, brawls, any number of hard words that we would have heard today but went unreported (or unreliably reported) at the time. He also hasn't got all the massacres, tortures, summary executions and other controversial episodes in his public career.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't got a legend of incredible personal heroism and military glory, nor of service to the state (as in conquest to increase its reach and preservation of the homeland).

On both ends of the chart Jackson was a far more extreme man. More extreme than any other President.

grackle said...

I see a parasite. A sexually depraved miscreant who is seeking only to gratify his basest and most immediate urges,

A concise description of Bill Clinton. Kudos.

traditionalguy said...

Trump and Jackson are similar in seeing ALL of the USA as worth defending from European Monarchs. And that includes the Western territories across the mountains from the Eastern seaboard Colony's Mercantile Fortune owners who would as soon sell out the Mississipi River Valley's inner third of the Continent to the British or to the Spanish as look at them.

Since 1840s the Mississippi border was moved on to California, thanks in large part to a Jackson protege President named Polk who was in DC and to the wisdom of an illiterate Scots-Irish mountain man named Kit Carson who guided Fremont on the scene.

The stubborn Scotsman Trump wants to protect that work done by Jackson, Polk, and Carson. And the Eastern Seaboard owners of fortunes in money still see him doing that as uncivilized.

Basil said...

Why are these lefty Fascists so angry all the time?

People exist who disagree with you, millions of them. You do not have to hate them. Not a rule.

Trump is newsworthy, that's all. They are covering him.

If you don't like it, go read Pravda or volunteer for Bernie.

Sebastian said...

Trump is a clown but he ridicules all the right people.

Gusty Winds said...

I got the feeling that if you in the media, you would much rather get assigned to the Trump campaign than Hillary's campaign. At a minimum for entertainment and excitement. Maybe their political senses lean left, but they don't like her either.

And more than likely for its relevancy. He's going to be the next President of the United States.

Phil 3:14 said...

Even the NYT can't resist the Trump clicks.

Ian F. Shield said...

They have to publish a few empty pieces of Trump worship to provide some appearance of balance, given the many more empty pieces of Hillary worship they publish.

Wilbur said...

"In the name of all that is ass-holy, please explain why you decided this empty piece of Trump-worship is worthy of publication."

Rusty said...

"Couldn't have said it better myself."

"Vicky is afeared of the Hillary-less future."

Vicky is afraid there won't be anyone there to tell her what to think.

Fabi said...

The New York Times is flirting with Trump and The National Review is flirting with Clinton. Does that about cover it?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Where were those complaints when Obama was running?

buwaya said...

"They have to publish a few empty pieces of Trump worship "

But it isn't. Its disparaging, snide and sarcastic and, well, not positive.

" spectacle of self-promotion and media manipulation."
" he will be busy starring in his news conferences, selling steaks, hotels and, of course, himself."
" Fact-challenged claims will be uttered."
" No presidential candidate has ever intertwined business interests and political aspirations as thoroughly as Mr. Trump. His bizarre news conference at the Jupiter golf course in March doubled as a prime-time infomercial for his products, which he displayed one by one: Trump’s steaks, Trump’s water and Trump’s magazine."

etc.

The problem the commenters are on about isn't that the reporters don't hate Trump, its that they don't hate him enough.

Jim said...

Sure it is a hit piece, but it just makes Trump seem more powerful. Great photos. As buwaya said..it isn't negative enough. That's what the nyt readers need now. Hillary is failing, bill looks and sounds weak and confused. Bernie is still crazy Bernie. How did it happen they ask. Trump isn't upsetting the apple cart. He threw it over the cliff at the start. No one knows what he does or says next.
The snowflakes are worried, big time. They want trump in the same box as McCain and Romney. Easy to hit.
Not this time. And it's freaking them out. Good

Sebastian said...

"In the name of all that is holy . . . " A little late for NYT readers to invoke what is "holy."

The Cracker Emcee said...

The comments there are hilarious. Please stop intruding on our bubble!

Crazy Jane said...

NYT commenters, on this article and others, are so uniform in outlook that it is tempting to conclude that the paper's readership consists of people who don't get out much. They only talk to each other. The paper is losing its credibility in national discussions and is becoming instead a megaphone for a single point of view. I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. Honestly, the product used to be better, thoughtful and more interesting, but that is getting to be a long time ago.

buwaya said...

"I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. "

They understand very well. The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising. Thats no longer a viable business model, so most US newspapers and other news outlets now mainly sell political influence. Many are owned by players to give them a seat on the table.

Thats their product, for the moment, but everyone knows even that is a declining market. There are no long terms consequences because there is no long term.

Jonathan Graehl said...

nice, buwaya. quotable and quoted.

Clyde said...

Those same commenters no doubt fellated Obama over the past eight years and would provide similar service to Hillary until their faces looked like glazed donuts. I guess they should know a little about sycophants from their own personal experience.

Crazy Jane said...

"The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising."

Good point. The Times' biggest stockholder is Carlos Slim(e), who made his enormous fortune with the Mexican government's protection of his monopoly on telephone service in that country. He made a lesser amount providing free cellphones from the federal government to the poor in the US.

Meanwhile, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos "invested" $250 million of his personal $50billion+ Amazon fortune to buy the Washington Post, which could not fetch such a price from any other buyer.

The idea of independent news organizations is new and rather quaint. In the early days of the republic, newspapers were house organs of political parties, and their points of view were well understood. We are back to that period, but several generations of Americans are not schooled in civics, let alone history, and don't understand how the landscape has shifted.

This is where we are now.

narciso said...

and he was the largest beneficiary, slim was, of the bailout robert rubin organized back in 1993-1994

cubanbob said...

buwaya said...

"I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. "

They understand very well. The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising. Thats no longer a viable business model, so most US newspapers and other news outlets now mainly sell political influence. Many are owned by players to give them a seat on the table.

Thats their product, for the moment, but everyone knows even that is a declining market. There are no long terms consequences because there is no long term.
5/24/16, 5:53 PM "

President Trumpy's DoJ will make sure that Slim's investment in the NYT will be very short term and the NYT's not too long long term will be considerably shorten.

Bryan C said...

"Shut up!" they explained.