In case you had any doubt whatsoever, let's just lay it out: The New York Times is not just a journalistic institution that leans left in its worldview. It's a left-wing propaganda arm, and from the moment it sets out to write a story, it is looking not to learn the truth, but to assemble information and/or misinformation (whatever works) that appears to support the Times's preferred narrative.
But the Times seems to have missed the fact that there are now other media outlets who will give a voice to sources the Times betrays. You heard a great deal the past few days about the account of Rowanne Brewer Lane, who was presented by the Times as a woman treated badly by Trump - when in fact she felt nothing of the sort and told Fox News that Trump treated her with complete respect.
Now comes Carrie Prejean. You remember her, right? A few years back, when Prejean won the Miss USA pageant (which was owned by Trump at the time), the left when complete insane over Prejean's statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, the Times sought out Prejean hoping they could get her to dish some dirt on Trump and his supposedly boorish behavior toward women. Prejean told them in no uncertain terms that she was not interested, and that they would get nothing bad about Trump out of her as she admires the man and had unfailingly been treated well by him.
So how did the Times deal with that? If they had any journalistic integrity, they would have written that Prejean spoke glowingly of Trump. But since they have no journalistic integrity whatsoever, they got ahold of a copy of Prejean's book Still Standing, looked up a passage about Trump interacting with women at the pageant, and lifted a particular quote that made it seem - out of context - like Trump acted badly toward the contestants. In fact, as Prejean told Sean Hannity on Fox News last night, his behavior was perfectly appropriate and, furthermore, Prejean has nothing but the highest regard for Trump. Watch:
I would suggest that Prejean might have been better off giving the Times an interview, given how easy it was for the Times to lift that passage and present it as they did, but given what happened to Rowanne Brewer Lane, it's easy to see why she wouldn't want to. No matter what you tell the Times, they're going to search out their notes for anything they can use to make Trump look bad, and ignore everything else.
It's what they do. I don't know Donald Trump and I've never seen how he acts toward women in private, but I am confident of this: Donald Trump treats women much more respectfully than the New York Times treats the truth.
In case you had any doubt whatsoever, let's just lay it out: The New York Times is not just a journalistic institution that leans left in its worldview. It's a left-wing propaganda arm, and from the moment it sets out to write a story, it is looking not to learn the truth, but to assemble information and/or misinformation (whatever works) that appears to support the Times's preferred narrative.
But the Times seems to have missed the fact that there are now other media outlets who will give a voice to sources the Times betrays. You heard a great deal the past few days about the account of Rowanne Brewer Lane, who was presented by the Times as a woman treated badly by Trump - when in fact she felt nothing of the sort and told Fox News that Trump treated her with complete respect.
