So much for the NY Times and their credibility

a reply to: M5xaz

No you should listen to what she has to say and read the article and make up your own mind. Something that nobody cares to actually do but they sure as hell don't mind piling into a thread talking about "liberal" this and "SJW" that based on a headline and a the slimmest bit of information available.

Simple really. Read the article.

She wasn't misquoted. I've seen her concede that point now in at least three interviews. Interviews setup by her manager. Interviews for which she was likely being paid. I also heard her say (on CNN) that she expected that Trump/his campaign would be reaching out to her shortly to "thank" her.

I doubt they'll be thanking her with a fruit basket.

Anyway, I've read the article and the events described were entirely factual per her own admission. What she was so upset about was that it didn't reflect her positive view of Donald Trump. The authors contend that the details stand for themselves irrespective of her own opinions of Donald Trump.

To be fair, she wasn't misquoted. But she claims it was used in such a way to insinuate something nefarious, when she actually enjoyed it.

As for the odd occurrence of a man liking beautiful women, I say we have a good story here. Like they say, when a dog bites a man it isn't news, but when a man bites a dog, that is newsworthy.

a reply to: TheTory

As much disdain as I have for Donald Trump (and I hated him when he was a Democrat), it has very little to do with his relationships with women. Do I think he's a misogynist? Nope. Would I have wanted him dating a female relative of mine 15 years ago? Nope. I wouldn't have wanted a female relative dating that other philanderer, Bill Clinton either but then again, I don't think being a philanderer immediately disqualifies a person from being president either.

That said, this woman has a agent/manager and I'm pretty sure she's no longer being paid for modelling so I can only assume that like everyone else, she's simply cashing in. She'll play up her faux outrage over the article for a couple weeks and then fade back to obscurity but anyone who believes that she honestly thought she was participating in a flattering article about Donald Trump in the NY Times is obviously too stupid to reason with.

I also find this faux outrage from Trump supporters over the NYT publishing a "hit piece" to be laughably disingenuous. The Trump campaign was obviously working with his buddy at the National Enquirer to publish DOZENS of far far far worse bs articles that made baseless accusations about Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary & Bill Clinton, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, etc.

He promoted many of those "hit pieces" personally on Twitter and in speeches.

Donald Trump being attacked in the media falls under the category of "just desserts" in my book. Live by the gun, die by the gun and all that.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That sounds fair. Though as I said earlier, Trump stated in an interview that he didn't want to go that route, but isn't against retaliation.



I do think, however, that outright hate for someone we don't know is foolish, especially since people close to him seem to love him. That to me is faux outrage, or at worst envy.

There is even an anti-Trump PAC:

Our Principles PAC who has 6,428 airings of attack ads from February 15 to May 8, 2016. Source

I don't really think Trump has hit first, but he sure does hit back.

a reply to: eisegesis

Because the one girl that did, has now put the NYT in a position to either outright ignore her claim or publicly challenge it by attempting to discredit the woman.

Again, it comes down to the truth of her testimony, but already she has said that she's willing to set a precedent for future disclosure from the other women that were interviewed, hopefully without the spin.

But she admits that she was quoted correctly; she just doesn't like that Trump's actions, which she found flattering at the time, reflect badly on him. It is her judgement that is questionable, not the paper's truthfulness.

a reply to: eisegesis

She hasn't denied any of the quotes .. that tells me something.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

Because the one girl that did, has now put the NYT in a position to either outright ignore her claim or publicly challenge it by attempting to discredit the woman.

Again, it comes down to the truth of her testimony, but already she has said that she's willing to set a precedent for future disclosure from the other women that were interviewed, hopefully without the spin.

But she admits that she was quoted correctly; she just doesn't like that Trump's actions, which she found flattering at the time, reflect badly on him. It is her judgement that is questionable, not the paper's truthfulness.

You are judging her feelings about the article and Trump?

My, how arrogant, ya think?

a reply to: DJW001

They quote her correctly and then use her quotes in a damaging manner that she did not intend? If she made it plain during the interview that she did not want them to be used badly and that's the way they were used, then shame on the reporter.

This reflects personal bias on the part of the reporter.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

Because the one girl that did, has now put the NYT in a position to either outright ignore her claim or publicly challenge it by attempting to discredit the woman.

Again, it comes down to the truth of her testimony, but already she has said that she's willing to set a precedent for future disclosure from the other women that were interviewed, hopefully without the spin.

But she admits that she was quoted correctly; she just doesn't like that Trump's actions, which she found flattering at the time, reflect badly on him. It is her judgement that is questionable, not the paper's truthfulness.

You are judging her feelings about the article and Trump?

My, how arrogant, ya think?

No, I am judging her naivete in talking to the New York Times and expecting them to put a positive spin on it.

a reply to: ketsuko

If she made it plain during the interview that she did not want them to be used badly and that's the way they were used, then shame on the reporter.

Did she make that stipulation? It would have been simpler not to talk to the press.

a reply to: eisegesis

There's always a chance that she's being paid to say these things in his defense

And if she is, all that really means is that this is and always was a non-story.

If she can be paid to shut up, she can be paid to open her mouth in the first place. Either way they both amount to zero credibility.

What really amazes me in the technological information super-highway of the 21st century is why anyone, anywhere actually takes notice of anything the old established media says, especially on political issues.

Most rags aren't even suitable for wrapping fish and chips in.

a reply to: DJW001 Nope not just one.

a reply to:

Sounds like NY Times has something against a straight man that likes women ? Maybe Trump should pretend to be LGBT to get more votes from the democrats.

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?

Has the NYT actually had enough credibility remaining in the last couple of decades to be destroyed?

There you go. The reason he is so promiscuous is because he is trying to hide his anxiety over actually being a homosexual.

Hahahahahahaha. I have actually heard people (generally those who were "not getting any") say that about their friends who are constantly "getting lucky" LOL

It could work! I would give you more than one star for that if I could LOL

a reply to: MEDIKATED

Funny that the NY times does a thorough story about how Trump treated women 25 years ago but doesn't touch the recent story of Slick Willy funneling money to this woman's company.

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.

They sure as snip didn't give a ratts arse how Bill Clinton acted with women in 'private'.

Suddenly they do because Trump has an R by his name.

'Liberals' ?

YOU lack consistency.

Donald likes big boobs, he is an evil evil man

Hillary stares at Christina Agulara's boobs, it's a joke. If Donald did it, it would lead the news cycle.

If Donald said he wants to get big boobs, because he always thought he should have them. He would be a hero, because that's a natural normal thing to do.

I guess this isn't going to help the problem any time soon...

These days, Trump is—at least publicly—a Times-hater. He has tweeted that he was happy to hear “how badly the @nytimes is doing,” criticized them for covering him “so inaccurately,” and called Times columnist David Brooks a “clown with no awareness of the world around him.”

Recently, Trump unleashed a series of anti-Times tweets, following the paper’s recent front-page story on his multi-decade history of sexist behavior toward women:

Tweets at link...

fusion.net...

Is the NYT really that sad that they think they can play this game with Donald Trump...It may get interesting.