How much of a Trump-hating venue has The New York Times become?
Let’s consider its lead story in today’s paper, written by Charlie Savage, which discusses the problems President Trump would face if he answered Robert Mueller’s list of 48 questions.
Here is the first paragraph:
President Trump has insisted he is eager to make the case to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that he has done nothing wrong. But the questions that Mr. Mueller wants to ask show why the president’s lawyers have countered that an interview would be a minefield for Mr. Trump.
Yes, that is true. And now, one would assume, the article would explain why.
Here is the second paragraph:
It is not just that the president has a history of telling demonstrable falsehoods, while the special counsel has already won four guilty pleas for the crime of lying to investigators. The questions would pose additional challenges for Mr. Trump, legal experts said.
Got that? See, the mindfield is not that this is a series of very general questions designed to create what lawyers call a “perjury trap” (i.e. if the person answering says one thing that is inconsistent, or has one lapse of memory, he/she can be attacked as a liar – and, in 48 questions, most of them open-ended rather than yes-no, who wouldn’t fall into such a trap).
No, the problem is that Trump is a serial liar and the special counsel already has four notches on his belt, with Trump about to be #5.
How’s that for “neutral”?
Never mind that the “demonstrable falsehoods” comment is an editorial opinion – one, by the way, which would be true of virtually every person who ever sat in the oval office (the previous president very much included). And never mind that the four guilty pleas have exactly nothing to do with what Mueller is supposed to be investigating Trump for.
Neither of those facts is any problem at all for “reporter” Savage or The Times.
This makes the rest of the article a joke not worth reading. Because with that clear of an anti-Trump coloration, how could a reader sincerely interested in a neutral account possibly trust it?
That is where the New York Times has descended. And, based on its performance during the past couple of years, don’t bet that it won’t drop further downward.
Ken you called the guy who wrote the article a Reporter. A Reporter reports the facts, from your own description he added his own opinion “editorial opinion”.
So, as you can see he isn’t a Reporter he is a Journalist.