The New York Times Hits Back At Trump's 'Name-Calling' Of Female Reporter

[ificandream]

32. No, they didn't.

In journalism school, students are taught that when writing news stories to keep it straight to the fact and leave out opinion and conclusions, even obvious ones. However, not everyone (especially right-wing media), adheres to that. Opinion pieces are different. The problem there is that when newspapers publish opinion pieces that you or I disagree with, it tends to make people think that newspapers believe that shit. Another good example is Maggie Haberman, whose "beat" has been essentially covering Trump. Trump knows this and has given her stuff no one else has had. Her book "Confidence Man" (a great read, by the way) is probably the best full portrait of his background up until the time it was published. I think an update now would be a good idea. I didn't used to think so, but I think the Times did get a little fogged by Trump (as did a lot of the media) when he first came aboard to run in 2016. But no one is fooled now. Real journalists have always held back some in drawing conclusions, but the Times laid out the facts even in 2016. The problem was that a lot of people, and not just the magas, didn't see it right away.