So much for the NY Times and their credibility

Woman in NYT piece about Trump's mistreatment of women fires back

One of the women quoted in a New York Times article headlined "Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private" is pushing back Monday and saying that she was taken out of context and Trump never made her feel uncomfortable.

I’m not going to make this a long drawn out Trump thread, but I’m kind of taken back by how the NY Times handled this and their now obvious attempt to discredit the man. If she's telling the truth, it only makes the rest of the accusations even more questionable.

"The New York Times told us several times that they would make sure my story that I was telling came across, they promised several times that they would do it accurately, they told me several times and my manager several times that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across the way that I was telling it and honestly and it absolutely was not,” Brewer Lane said. “They did take quotes from what I said and they put a negative connotation on it. They spun it to where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump.”

There's always a chance that she's being paid to say these things in his defense, but a lot of me doesn’t feel any truth to that. The video speaks for itself. You be the judge...

a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

The original story was good for another 500,000 votes.

This will add another 1,000,000

Simple.

The plot thickens.

Tune in for more election dirt details…

a reply to: DJW001

Lol paper misrepresents who the main part of the article is about.

Her fault.

Lol that logic

The NYT reporters on this were interviewed. They look like they just got out of Journalism school.
Liberal Hit Piece...Failed and Backfired.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's some stupid logic for sure.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

You also can say that about Hillary and her always blaming the vast Right Wing conspiracy.

a reply to: eisegesis

Liberal hatchet job, typical, so turned off from everything known as "liberal" in this day and age. They just can't wear out the misogynistic, racist, bigot card. Well I got news for you SJW, progressives, snowflakes, nobody is going to give a # about those words the more you lie and paint people with your critical pretentious brush, people are eventually going to just not listen to you anymore, it's a self defeating cause at this point.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

So, we should trust the NYT over the very woman being supposedly quoted ?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The NYT reporters on this were interviewed. They look like they just got out of Journalism school.
Liberal Hit Piece...Failed and Backfired.

yeah...good thing no conservative newspaper HAS EVER done that...rolls eyes....

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

Pretty much. If they're caught in a downright lie, how can you tell when they aren't? If they misrepresented the facts this time, how can you trust them on the rest of their stuff?

Besides, this is hardly the first time the NYT has been caught lying in a story. It's just the latest. This is not the same NYT your father read. It has morphed into another leftist liberal rag.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

So... one woman objects to the way the NYT portrayed her story, and that completely destroys the paper's credibility, not hers?

So, we should trust the NYT over the very woman being supposedly quoted ?

She was one among many. No-one else has complained.

a reply to: DJW001

If the woman's testimony is truthful, she was told repeatedly that her recollection would be stated as accurately as possible. She is claiming that the NYT did not hold their end of the bargain.

Unless they make an example out of the "journalist" who developed the story, the NYT are more or less standing behind it. I'm not here to defend Trump, only to share this woman's testimony.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

a reply to: schuyler

right....she said the paper exaggerated her "being paraded out in her swimsuit"....she said "little hands trump" never "paraded" her....WOW, BURN THE TIMES DOWN!!!....

originally posted by: xuenchen
The original story was good for another 500,000 votes.

This will add another 1,000,000

Simple.

Are you accusing the American electorate of being stupid?

The story was stupid anyway.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
The story was stupid anyway.

equally the overeaction

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
The story was stupid anyway.

But it works on people who don't question or research what they're told. Some consider the NYT a source of "information."

a reply to: eisegesis

The NY Times has credibility?