…to which the total and irrefutable rebuttal is…
Observations:
- Incredible.
- If someone believes this, then they are by definition too inattentive, ill-informed, dishonest of stupid to have what they write published in the New York Times.
- Not only does bias make you stupid, it makes you willing to display to the whole world how biased and stupid you are.
- Why would anyone trust the Times after this, or any paper that published such an undeniable attempt to erase not just history, but recent history?
- The headline is pure gaslighting. A reader who hasn’t had her brain wiped like in “Paycheck” will think, “Wait…did I imagine the entire campaign against Trump for at least two years before the election being based on his being a fascist, Hitler II? I must have…the Times says that Trump vilifying political opponents is unique and unprecedented.
- How long does the mainstream media think it can keep doing this before virtually no one takes them seriously at all?
Ethics Alarms 
“How long does the mainstream media think it can keep doing this before virtually no one takes them seriously at all?”
Probably as long as voters keep buying such written crap, while voting for the purveyors of “peaceful” rhetoric and protests over and over again. Short-term memory loss is a sign of worse to come.
However, if Trump ever learned to use filters when describing his opponents…..naaah…not gonna happen.
Sigh
>> “How long does the mainstream media think it can keep doing this before virtually
>> no one takes them seriously at all?”
A good question.
Batya Ungar-Sargon, among others, has argued that the _NYTimes_ now tells subscribers what they want to hear, rather than making an effort to report facts somewhat objectively to a broader segment of the public.
We can think of that as a “subscriber driven model.” Most of the advertising money is now online with the internet giants, so the _NYTImes_ has now pivoted to a business model where it caters to the sensibilities of subscribers.
Then, you can imagine things accelerating until the newspaper is “captured” by the paying subscriber audience, which gets irate when the _NYTimes_ has the gall to report something different from what the subscribers think they are paying for.
This later stage is called “audience capture.”
charles w abbott
rochester NY
P.S.: Oddly, the single thing that has most shielded me from believing that Trump is a singular menace is a community college course I took decades ago. It was an American History course at Monroe Community College (very good school, btw, thanks Dr. Lansky!) in which I learned how much the East Coast elites of the 1820s and 1930s hated, really hated, Andrew Jackson.
In fact, come of think of it, the same East Coast elites later thought poorly of LBJ and absolutely hated Nixon. No matter what Nixon did.
so…I have to ask myself “Is it as bad as the mainstream media says, or do elite journalists just hate our current president?”
It’s no longer Andy Jackson who wanted to shoot Henry Clay and hang John C. Calhoun, instead we have “Donny from Queens!”
As Mencken said about the U.S., living here is “the greatest show on earth.”
How long………………….. until David Litt learns his lesson for real and stops reading garbage like this.
The political left continues to go out of their way to prove that my statement has validity.
“President Trump’s vilification of political opponents and journalists seeds the ground for threats of prosecution more than any modern president before.”
So in addition to forgetting about the Left’s vilification of the Right, the Times has also forgotten all about how President Trump was ACTUALLY PROSECUTED long before he allegedly seeded any ground. BUT . . . TRUMP!!!
–Dwayne