If New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger is looking for support from other media outlets for his complaint about embarrassing tweets by journalists for his newspaper being exposed, he can cross Politico off his list. Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer has no sympathy for that complaint as he made clear in his Monday Politico Magazine article, "Why Journalists’ Old Tweets Are Fair Game for Trump."
I never thought I would write this, but the publisher of The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, is right. Sulzberger wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in response to President Trump's claim that his newspaper committed “treason” by publishing a story about U.S. efforts to compromise Russia's power grid should Moscow again try to meddle in U.S. elections. The Times says it consulted National Security officials who raised no objections to its publication.
You can’t make this stuff up. There — in the pages not of the New York Times but rather the Wall Street Journal — was no less than the publisher of the Times, A.G. Sulzberger, as he blasted the President of the United States. And in the very first paragraph Sulzberger misled readers.
When is increasing pay for hourly workers politically suspect? When are earmarks considered pork? When they are encouraged by Donald Trump, at least at the New York Times. Walmart can do no right in the eyes of the liberal paper. Michael Corkery managed to turn even the liberal-pleasing move against the despised company: "Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, waded into the bumpy waters of partisan politics on Thursday, announcing that it will use some of its savings under the new tax bill to provide wage increases, bonuses and expanded benefits to its hourly workers."
On the front-page of the November 12 edition of the New York Times, there was a story on how hiring is shaping up in the Trump administration. It noted that three of his children, Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were named to the transition team. “The Trump family, it is clear,” the news story said, “will wield unusual power in the composition of an administration that is already shaping up as remarkable for its clannishness.”
The New York Times over the weekend was still insisting the defeat of public-sector unions in Wisconsin actually heralds the revival of the Democratic Party.
Saturday’s “Political Memo” teamed tea-party beat reporter Kate Zernike (pictured below) with Monica Davey for "Democrats See Wisconsin Loss As Galvanizing." It came on the heels of Friday’s pro-union coverage, including "In Wisconsin Battle on Unions, State Democrats See a Big Gift."
Even as the Republican governor of Wisconsin was signing a bill Friday that all but ended collective bargaining for state employees, Democrats nationally had put out advertisements and letters to use his own success against him.
In a push to raise money for their candidates, Democrats hope Wisconsin will be for them what the health care overhaul was for Republicans in last year’s midterm elections: a galvanizing force for their base, and an example of overreaching that will win them crucial independent voters, not just in Wisconsin but also in Congressional races and the presidential election next year.
That’s not exactly how the Times covered the passage of Obama-care. Adam Nagourney’s front-page “political memo” of March 23, 2010, “For G.O.P., United Stand Has Drawbacks, Too,” strongly suggested Republicans could pay a political price for opposing Obama-care. (Oops.)
Friday’s New York Times off-lead story from Madison by Monica Davey and A.G. Sulzberger, in the aftermath of a defeat for public-sector unions in Wisconsin, spun the win by Republican Gov. Scott Walker as a long-term political victory for Democrats: “Wisconsin Curbs Public Unions, But Democrats Predict Backlash.” The online headline was even more blunt: “In Wisconsin Battle on Unions, State Democrats See a Big Gift.” Walker has evidently awoken “the sleeping giant” of labor unions (as if they had previously stayed out of politics).
By contrast, there was no such wishful thinking or hunt for the bright side for the losers in the aftermath of the fiercely contested passage of unpopular Obama-care last year. Adam Nagourney’s front-page “political memo” of March 23, 2010, “For G.O.P., United Stand Has Drawbacks, Too,” suggested Republicans could pay a political price for opposing Obama-care. (It didn’t quite work out that way.)