Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two

[Revmitchell]

As York notes, in case it's unclear, Baquet later spells out that "one story" the paper covered "truly well" for so long and how it was derailed:

Baquet: Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?

After gliding over the hard reality that Mueller's exhaustive, two-year investigation found no substantive evidence of "collusion" after a two-year investigation, Baquet then laid out his "vision" for coverage of Trump for "the rest of the next two years": focus on racism and division.

Baquet: I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.

Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two Years

 

[church mouse guy]

Mexican zillionaire Carlos Slim, who acquired a total monopoly on all things telephone in Mexico after his personal friend former Mexican President Carlos Salinas sold him the state-owned Mexican telephone system, owns part of the New York Times. He hates Trump for some reason--maybe because Trump wants to stop Mexico from sending their dissidents from their corrupt government north of the border. He weaponized the New York Times, but then the NYT said that Stalin did not have a famine in the Ukraine and Fidel Castro was not a communist, so the NYT was never a conservative newspaper although it may have been more accurate in the past. Bill Whittle says that the NYT is now a magazine like Rolling Stone or something. Does anyone care? I remember buying the NYT 30 years ago and being very disappointed in how mundane and plebian it was and decided to save my money and buy something else.

 

[carpro]

The real problem is that they even THOUGHT there was some sort of collusion for 2 years...with absolutely no proof, and reported on it like it was a fact. Again, with zero proof or corroboration.

 

[church mouse guy]

The real problem is that they even THOUGHT there was some sort of collusion for 2 years...with absolutely no proof, and reported on it like it was a fact. Again, with zero proof or corroboration.

Do you think that the NYT really believed that Trump colluded with Russia?

Russian expert Stephen Kotkin said that he thought that it was a good thing that General Flynn called the Russian ambassador on the telephone about hostility between the two great powers that dates in his opinion from the 1890s when the USA became the world's leading economic power.

I myself never thought that the Russians were involved in the Trump campaign because it was the GOP and Romney who considered Russia dangerous and the Clinton and Obama who were more flexible and wanted a reset, the reset having failed openly after Russia took the Crimea. But mainly, I thought that Trump got so much free publicity and had such huge crowds everywhere that he went that he was winning on his own from the moment that he said that Jeb Bush was low-energy and ended the Bush dynasty. I thought that he was going to win because of the huge crowds that he got everywhere. My birthplace county went 70% for Trump. He is very popular among the elderly. Indiana was greatly helped by the Trump tax cut and the defense buildup. We never got raises during the Obama years and I worked for rich Democrats then but we got raises and good ones under Trump and you can find entry-level jobs all over Indianapolis.

 

[carpro]

Do you think that the NYT really believed that Trump colluded with Russia?

Not if any of them had a lick of sense, but they did their best to keep the narrative alive. Trump haters printing fake news.

 

[agedman]

Oh, so very many actually believe in the NYT!

It isn’t that they don’t have a reason.

They were born to believe in the NYT!

One way the god of this world controls the world is through mass media giving the adoring fans all they desire.