- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 72,238
- Reaction score
- 44,012
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In contrast to its policy of not repeating "barnyard epithets," said policy existing only days ago when the Times refused to spell out what Senator Reed said about Farenthold in his hot-mic conversation with Susan Collins, now comes Scaramucci, and what do you know? It's time to abandon any pretense of editorial standards.
From NRO:
Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.
...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.
New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review
I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.
From NRO:
Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.
...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.
New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review
I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.
