America’s Most Trusted News Source: The New York Times

I am a New York Times subscriber. Before you X-out of TruthNewsNet.org, please understand why I subscribe: the New York Times is the epitome of the mainstream media “Fake News” sources. I, therefore, am required to daily stay on top of the latest chapter of “Fake News.” So, every morning I choke down a cup of coffee and the latest drivel from the Times. It is ALWAYS entertaining while at the same time ALWAYS nauseating.

We could daily chronicle the latest examples of New York Times “Fake News” for our thousands of TNN partners — there are a plethora of samples every day. We don’t want to waste your time — so we don’t do that. But occasionally there are examples that cry for exposure. Today is one of those days with a couple of those “Fake News” stories in The Times that begs for exposure and discussion. Let’s get to it.

The NY Times Today

The Times broke an explosive expose’ of President Trump’s usage of cell phones for official telephone communications. A president doing so is not unusual nor unexpected. But The Times claims the Chinese and Russians are listening to each of those conversations:

WASHINGTON — When President Trump calls old friends on one of his iPhones to gossip, gripe or solicit their latest take on how he is doing, American intelligence reports indicate that Chinese spies are often listening — and putting to use invaluable insights into how to best work the president and affect administration policy, current and former American officials said.

Mr. Trump’s use of his iPhones was detailed by several current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security arrangements. The officials said they were doing so not to undermine Mr. Trump, but out of frustration with what they considered the president’s casual approach to electronic security.

American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the president’s cell phone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials.

(The underlined text is the subject of this segment)

The Times is very obviously — and even now with impunity — relying almost totally on “anonymous” sources, allegedly members of the Trump Administration for their “big news” stories about President Trump. In doing so, they apparently use as the default for the assumptions of their readers that everything their reporters say is believed. Therefore, truth in reporting is no longer necessary. Let’s break that down:

The phone usage details were allegedly “detailed by several current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security.” In other words, current and former Trump staffers are voluntarily divulging classified information — at least according to the New York Times.

The Times wants you to believe that simply (in order to throw the President under the bus) they are embracing the real possibility of being jailed for committing multiple felonies in having these discussions with reporters. What benefit could there possibly be to take this risk?

Certainly, there are people who do not like President Trump. Certainly, it is probable that not all who now work or did so previously in the White House are supportive of President Trump, his methodology of governing, his messaging, and some of his policies. But I find it ludicrous that any staffer would roll the dice on federal jail time to talk with reporters about the President’s conversations that are monitored by foreign governments. Their risking their personal freedom was not about the President giving the Chinese top secret military or intelligence secrets. In fact, they risked jail to simply tell Times reporters that Mr. Trump talked on iPhones!

And the New York Times expects YOU to believe that, too.

Real or Fake

It is extremely difficult to accept anonymous sources any longer. Multiple anonymously sourced stories in many Mainstream Media (MSM) reports have never been factually verified. Many have been proven incorrect. MSM editors have very obviously assumed that Americans are oblivious to the obvious: MSM who use anonymous sources do so to simply paint THEIR political narrative pertaining to Donald Trump. And they are now certain that Americans are either too busy, too distracted, or too stupid to pick up on their intentions.

The MSM excuses and justification for the continued use of anonymous sources is this: “If we are forced to publish news sources, much of what the First Amendment guarantees in Free Speech will be lost. Sources who fear retribution for telling the truth will no longer step forward. Media outlets will then be unable to — on behalf of all Americans — hold brutal and unethical governments accountable for their wrongdoing.”

Poppycock! There is a Whistleblower law put in place by the federal government that protects any of those “anonymous sources” from retribution of any kind IF they step forward. That law is to accomplish what MSM claims THEY must do: protect those who have real stories of real wrongdoing to report.

MORE New York Times Madness

The Times has taken this entire craziness in reporting to a new and vitriolic level. October 25th, they released an article in which the writer fantasizes about the President being gunned down by a Russian spy in cahoots with a Secret Service officer.

In an article published in the New York Times‘ Book Review, five writers conjured up fantasy scenarios about President Trump’s future with the Russia investigation.

One writer, Zoe Sharp, took liberal fantasizing to the next level and wrote a story that ends with President Trump being assassinated by a Russian agent. The Times’ editors illustrate the piece, titled “How It Ends,” with a Russian flag sticking out of a pistol barrel.

In the story, the Russian attempts to shoot the president, but his gun misfires. A Secret Service agent then offers his own pistol to the Russian:

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

The Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …” 

This assassination fantasy was published just one day before the media exploded with criticism for President Trump’s rhetoric after a series of apparent mail bombs sent to many Democrat political figures Wednesday, including one sent to CNN’s New York office.

It’s unbelievable that the newspaper formerly known as the premier newspaper in the Nation has resorted to whipping up soap opera stories to attract a crowd. And it is reprehensible they would do so in the caustic political environment in the U.S. Just imagine if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly released a book during the Obama presidency that contained the Obama murder at the hands of a member of his Secret Service contingency. Americans would go nuts! And the MSM outrage would have been off the charts.

Summary

Here’s the sad proof of what’s going on, not just at the New York Times, but throughout Mainstream Media: readership is plummeting. Americans have steadily moved to instant 24/7 news through “quick” news stories, ditching the traditional methods of getting news: from newspapers. MSM outlets are fighting to survive as they watch their readership, ratings, and advertising revenue tank as their markets shrink.

So what do they do? They find ways to whip-up readers by finding the juiciest stories about the most controversial people and occurrences to keep those in front of sensationalist hungry Americans. And when there are not enough factual incidents to satisfy those American appetites for juicy news, THEY MAKE IT UP! Here’s how they do it:

Instead of a group of reporters with an editor sitting around a conference table at the paper and looking at the potential stories to go in the “next edition,” they sit around the conference table bemoaning there are not enough salacious happenings at the White House to entice their audience to wait breathlessly to grab that paper from the newsstand. They only have one option: create the story.

So, they come up with topics that will surely hook their audience members who are looking for ugly stuff about well-known people. The President is a crass, New York “bully” who is constantly taking shots at all those who disagree with him. He’s a perfect story subject!

“Hey, Billy. How about ‘investigating’ the rumor that Trump is using unsecured cell phones to hold conversations with foreign leaders. Certainly, the Russians and the Chinese are accessing those conversations to get dirt on the Administration so they can blackmail,” said Jim, the Editor-in-Chief.

Billy replied, “OK, Jim. I’m on it. When’s my deadline?”

“5:00 PM tomorrow. Don’t be late,” quipped Jim. Billy was Jim’s best political reporter and ALWAYS came up with some real dirt on politicians. “Get a good source or two on the cell phone stuff and let’s run with it.”

Billy calls everyone he can that currently works at the White House or the few that have left. None know anything about the Trump cell phone usage talking to foreign leaders. But Billy has a substitute plan: ANONYMOUS SOURCES! No one will know that if he writes a juicy story that makes the President look dumb or uncaring or simply as a buffoon too stupid to know the danger of doing something like that, he can credit his source as “anonymous,” and he’ll get a green light.

Having real sources at the New York Times — and probably many other MSM outlets — seems to no longer be necessary. That old journalistic adage that journalists formerly scoffed at: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,” appears to be the fundamental marching order of the Mainstream Media. Anonymous sources save the day.

With the two atrocious examples detailed above, unbiased Americans who are willing to accept the truth can at least accept the “possibility” above as more than just a fairy tale. In this crazy news environment in which 90% of all news stories about all things Trump are negative, keeping fresh “garbage” about Trump gets harder and harder. This necessitates the use of “anonymous sources” that probably are really “no sources at all” — just made-up to give reporters and editors security to get their payroll check deposit.

Is it any wonder that the New York Times is dying? Every day more and more Americans wake up and go “Hmmmm…..that’s just too hard for me to believe!”

More and more it’s hard to believe because more and more what they are seeing is NOT TRUE!

 

 

 

Play

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.