It is what they are most proud of: their status as the nations's newspaper-of-record, that "the agenda for the nation is set in that editorial room," and therefore that they are Quasi-official. Without groveling to a quasi-Nazi they lose their status, and perhaps readers and perhaps their business.
That's a ways away but whatever the most recent figures, The New York Times is not doing swimmingly on the bottom line.
That's the only thing that matters to them as it is the only thing that matters to their interview-of-the-day, the president-select of their country.
Here are the headlines in a snapshot from the editorial page:
The first one, from the editorial board is as good as it is going to get. But it and all the others: they never should have met with Trump. Any man who wins the presidency with a hate-centric campaign should be ignored. Not invited into that room to sit next to the publisher, as if they were on the same side, flanking their opponents, the reporters.
There is nothing that Donald Trump can say, or do as president that legitimizes his presidency because to legitimize his presidency is to legitimize his campaign.
But here you see it: "the struggle for Trump's soul has just begun" from Tomas L. Friedman.
NO. That soul is set, the campaign set it. He won repeatedly threatening to "lock up" Hillary Clinton. So he backed off that in the Times interview? Ah, nice. It doesn't change how he won. He was illegitimate the moment he won in the Electoral College, losing the popular vote to Mrs. Clinton by 1,000,000+ votes.
The soul of the man is bankrupt. It was set when he encouraged violence in Cleveland, when he offered to pay the court costs of one of his Brownshirts arrested for sucker-punching a black protester.
His soul was set when he repeatedly refused to say that he would concede had he lost in the Electoral College as he lost in the nationwide vote.
"Fellow Trump Critics, Maybe Try a Little Listening," lightly scolds Trump non-critic David Brooks. It is just the Times cutting its losses. Have they not given this man $2 billion in free advertising in this campaign? They need to listen more?! No. They heard. We all heard. They don't listen more. They listen now to placate, to go along, to clear the path, "Right this way, Mr. President-elect, we will stand aside." What they could have used was some of that free $2 billion they gave him in their drained advertising coffers if you believe the rumors.
That's a ways away but whatever the most recent figures, The New York Times is not doing swimmingly on the bottom line.
That's the only thing that matters to them as it is the only thing that matters to their interview-of-the-day, the president-select of their country.
Here are the headlines in a snapshot from the editorial page:
The first one, from the editorial board is as good as it is going to get. But it and all the others: they never should have met with Trump. Any man who wins the presidency with a hate-centric campaign should be ignored. Not invited into that room to sit next to the publisher, as if they were on the same side, flanking their opponents, the reporters.
There is nothing that Donald Trump can say, or do as president that legitimizes his presidency because to legitimize his presidency is to legitimize his campaign.
But here you see it: "the struggle for Trump's soul has just begun" from Tomas L. Friedman.
NO. That soul is set, the campaign set it. He won repeatedly threatening to "lock up" Hillary Clinton. So he backed off that in the Times interview? Ah, nice. It doesn't change how he won. He was illegitimate the moment he won in the Electoral College, losing the popular vote to Mrs. Clinton by 1,000,000+ votes.
The soul of the man is bankrupt. It was set when he encouraged violence in Cleveland, when he offered to pay the court costs of one of his Brownshirts arrested for sucker-punching a black protester.
His soul was set when he repeatedly refused to say that he would concede had he lost in the Electoral College as he lost in the nationwide vote.
"Fellow Trump Critics, Maybe Try a Little Listening," lightly scolds Trump non-critic David Brooks. It is just the Times cutting its losses. Have they not given this man $2 billion in free advertising in this campaign? They need to listen more?! No. They heard. We all heard. They don't listen more. They listen now to placate, to go along, to clear the path, "Right this way, Mr. President-elect, we will stand aside." What they could have used was some of that free $2 billion they gave him in their drained advertising coffers if you believe the rumors.
They're trying to recoup. They're trying to recoup financially and recoup the status they dream they have.
"The struggle for the Times' soul has just begun." And they've begun by selling low.
