Fuck that shitrag.

If I'm correct, the NY Times has still never retracted their Gulf Of Tonkin lies.

A trillion, billion dollar lawsuit from Cantaloupe Caligula the Corpulent. I mean, hell, Caligula merely threatened the BBC with a billion dollar action, and it folded faster than a cheap suit. And he got what, $15 million from Paramount/CBS over his bogus claim of the Harris interview being an illegal campaign contribution.

This grotesque, corrupt, assclown of a fascist needs to…go.

Too. Funny, that no one has brought a lawsuit against them for all the propaganda, surpressed news about pedo Trump and all the support they gave him for free to get him elected.

Did pedo Trump even report it?

They apologised (first to viewers); then they apologised to Trump (which I believe was after your post), but they said they wouldn't pay anything. And Trump said he'll sue for between $1bn and $5bn. Which is where it still stands.

(Apologising is fine; the edit was misleading. But no one noticed it at the time, because everyone knew Trump wanted the riot.)

They folded in that they apologized to his ass, when they should have said, “Bring it on.”
At that point, he’d have likely turned TACO. No way could a case stand up at discovery. And he’d be open to all KINDS of problems at that point.

Except for Paul Krugman, they have pretty much always sucked. And Kristof is ..eh..he is a bit douchey but that aside not bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies

Chomsky nailed them:

It’s also why like The Atlantic they shaped the popular and disastrous for earth worldview that any limits to growth are imaginary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

They are Cornucopian fantasists and douchey assholes as well. They also peddle Reefer Madness and promote sleazy anti-psychiatry influencers like Laura Delano.

That’s the level of their sleazy commitment to crassness and conservatism. They will on the one hand peddle Reefer Madness from the worst type of establishment friendly shrinks like the douchebags you would find at Stanford Psychiatry (Keith Humphreys, Smita Das, Nina Vasan, that Woebot woman)- it should not be acceptable to be in bed with data mining and defense contracting giants like Google, Palantir etc and also peddle narcotics war propaganda and coercive psychiatry. Like that’s a conflict of interest right there. On the other hand, they will also promote sleazy anti-psychiatry influencers like Laura Delano. They are a disgrace and it’s not surprising that they underplayed Hitler.

They are to journalism what Stanford psychiatry is to psychiatry. A few legit elites like Steve Chu aside, Stanford itself is pretty douchey overall. They are -like Gates, the NYT, The Atlantic etc, this stale stagnant hoary pseudo elite conservatives who are misrepresented as the “liberal” elite or even more laughably “radical left” by MAGA and MAHA types. Krugman was the last legit liberal they had.

Campaign contribution to ever Republicon, MAGAt and pedo Trump humper.

Seems it should be monitized and reported so liberals know what we are up against.

That is something that I can see agreeing with. Anything that gets these things shut down.

.... to much.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/epstein-offered-reporter-photos-donald-girls-bikinis-kitchen/story?id=127473941
Epstein offered reporter photos of 'donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen': Email

The comments came in an exchange with a New York Times reporter.

...... because it isn't entertaining enough and doesn't pander to their prejudices. Sometimes it even burdens them with having to carefully read about and understand a complicated situation and then actuality think about it.

But, even so, the "alternative" media wouldn't exist without the legacy media. To take an example, most of Raw Story's "reporting" consists of tendentiously aggregating snips of legacy media reporting and presenting them with click bait headlines. They would be lost without the legacy media reporting.

This story is another example... With the exception that Raw Story is much better at it than whoever it was that tweeted this.

He's only been instrumental in saving whatever democracy we have left with his legal battles.

.... That's that ding-dong legacy media for you!

On edit: I googled and found out he is the founder of the Democracy Docket, which I have heard of.

According to the New York Times (No Paywall):

So, I guess you and the New York Times are in agreement on this guy's importance.

Lawrence O'Donnell highlighted this one on his show last night:

"He feels alone, and is nuts !!!, I told everyone from day one. Evil beyond belief. Mad, and most thought I was speaking metaphorically. Its [sic] obvious he could crack."

-- Jeffrey Epstein on Trump, in an email to reporter Landon Thomas Jr.

.... The Daily Beast is particularly interested in the exchange, because they were discussing a Daily Beast op-ed about how TSF was approaching a psychiatric breakdown. The op-ed drew on mental health experts who said Trump displayed signs of mania and posed an “imminent danger” to the public.

So how is this news that the New York Times should have rushed into print? Some guy says TSF is "evil" is news? I think we all know plenty of people who think and say TSF is evil - one more guy saying it in an email isn't breaking news. In fact, it isn't even really news now. It's getting published just as an adjunct to all the other emails that have been released, and because every news outlet, right now, has to publish something from the emails.

I don't see how this indicates anything remise on the part of the reporter, the NYT, or the "legacy media".

the point is the cozy exchanges of Epstein with this reporter, who knew well of the close relationship between tRump and Epstein, the world's most notorious pedophile, and somehow couldn't see to publishing a story warning the country about that.

It is the JOB of a reporter to cozy up to sources, ask leading questions, get them to talk. He's doing his job.

damaging info Epstein had on DJT.

..... a reporter pursues information from sources by "cozying up" to them. If you want to find out what is going on, you have to talk to some "interesting", that is, despicable, folks. You send them articles, ask them questions, let them pontificate, and see if you can get them to rat out one of their "associates". If you want the dirt on TSF, you have to play nice with those who are or have been playing nice with TSF. So, he was doing his job. And we are all better off for reporters who do their job.

An observation: If this reporter knew Epsitine was a notorious , no good, very bad pedophile, then everyone knew it. It wouldn't have been a big news exclusive.

A question: How do you know this reporter NEVER wrote any negative revelations about Epstein? Have you done a survey of his reporting to come to that conclusion? I'm not saying he did, but if you want to say he didn't, you ought to look into it first.

and clearly he didn't write anything that damaging about trump.

This reporter in question, Landon Thomas Jr., did write this famous New York magazine profile of Epstein from 2002:
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

The article doesn't mention anything about pedophilia, sex, rape or girls.

.... you provided was written in 2002. The criminal investigation into Epstein didn't begin until 2005. That might explain why the article doesn't mention anything about pedophilia, sex, rape or girls.

But, based on the the emails with Epstein, what did you expect him to write about TSF?

He was offered some pictures of TSF with some "bikini clad girls". He said yes, but either he didn't get the pictures or they didn't prove newsworthy. My guess is that E was gassing off, and such pictures don't exist. Maybe they will show up, but they haven't yet.

There are plenty of salacious pictures of TSF with women and girls in various states of undress, so a few pictures of him with some bikini girls, even if they existed, would not have been news. The Access Hollywood tape, which came out the year after, was front page news.... Brought to you by that main stream legacy media operation The Washington Post.

If it weren't for the main stream legacy media, we wouldn't know even a small fraction of what we do.

and also good pals with tRump. And Landon was well placed at the NYTimes to dig into that ugly relationship. But for some reason the NYT didn't dig into that relationship and instead completely obsessed over Hillary's emails, that thoroughly tainted her and helped trump win. Meanwhile they ignored all kinds of dirt on tRump.

I understand we need good reporters and a robust media. I don't blame the reporters so much as the editors and upper level bosses what they decide to focus on. That's the problem with all of the MSM right now.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch was a quality paper that produced good writers.

The NY Times used to be a highly respected newspaper. But just like CBS News, they’ve gone downhill since Reagan.

The Times squandered its storied history because of the owners’ greed. Even most of their columnists are, at best, lame.