• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'New York Times' Reporters on Trump's Past Relationships: "We Stand By Our Story" (1 Viewer)

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,136
Reaction score
17,975
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey of The New York Times speak to CNN regarding their recent story profiling Donald Trump's relationships with women. Rowanne Brewer Lane, one of the women interviewed, said the article was inaccurate and "very upsetting."
"We stand by our story," Barbara said. "We believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself."
'New York Times' Reporters on Trump's Past Relationships: "We Stand By Our Story" | Video | RealClearPolitics

Wait ... there's more ...

Former Trump Girlfriend Slams NYT: "I Did Not Have A Negative Experience," "He Never Offended Me In Any Way"
Rowanne Brewer Lane appeared on Monday's FOX & Friends to dispute the New York Times' "negative" story on women who had dated Donald Trump. Brewer Lane said the Trump never demeaned her or offended her in any way, calling him a gentleman.
He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way. He never offended me in anyway. He was very gracious, I saw him around all types of people, all types of women, he was very kind, thoughtful, generous, he was a gentleman.
Former Trump Girlfriend Slams NYT: "I Did Not Have A Negative Experience," "He Never Offended Me In Any Way" | Video | RealClearPolitics
 
This is the same NYT that ran a fluff piece on Hillary's Bold Vision while simultaneously saying that her vision is subtle and hard to understand: all in the same article. I've rarely seen some of these media outlets be so obviously in the tank for a candidate.
 
When one of the leads you're hanging your story upon comes out calling your reports full of ****, you have a journalistic problem.
 
I guess the Times couldn't have discovered this "revelation" anytime since last June?
 
This was a hit piece from the Times. No surprise. They are the propoganda wing of the rat party.
 
Lots of stories in the press the last week selling the theme "Trump hates women, no really, he does!".

He talks about women in ways that the left does not approve of, which is fine and dandy with me.
 
When one of the leads you're hanging your story upon comes out calling your reports full of ****, you have a journalistic problem.

How about, "We stand by our story even if it's full of ****." I think that captures the spirit of the event.
 
I would laugh my ass off if they managed to get themselves sued for it.
 
NYT lied to smear a Republican presidential candidate? Shocker!
 
Good grief.

The NYT article wasn't a "hit piece." It was a nuanced article which shows contradictory aspects of how Trump deals with women, including promoting women to high levels of responsibility long before anyone else in a male-dominated industry, but also treating many women in childish and sexist ways.

E.g. Lane was never quoted in the article as describing Trump as a sexist pig; the worst thing she says is that he was "boyish" for asking her to rate Marla Maples on a 1 to 10 scale. (Trump, in turn, denies knowing Ms Lane well, despite dating her.)

And yes, I'd say it's demeaning for a man to meet a woman at a party, demand she change into a swimsuit, and then parade her around and say "This is a stunning Visbek girl, isn't it?"
 
I feel like every New York Times article on Donald Trump reads like a bodice ripper. Those people need a new hobby. And new jobs.

They're in the tank for the democrats.
 
This is the same NYT that ran a fluff piece on Hillary's Bold Vision while simultaneously saying that her vision is subtle and hard to understand: all in the same article. I've rarely seen some of these media outlets be so obviously in the tank for a candidate.

Ahem, Obama???
 
The Times has their crack reporter, Jayson Blair, running down more leads on this story as we speak.
 
They stand by their story? What a surprise. It's more like they are saying they don't give a crap, because they know how this woman felt about Trump but that's not what they wanted the story to show.

Remember when they ran a front page story about John McCain's affair a few weeks before the election? What affair? Who cares, damage done, they accomplished their task.
 

They can stand by their story, and rightfully so, if it was reported honestly. But, doubt can be cast on the women who were part of the story. The Times probably did a great job, but the women who they got the info from could always be in question.

Not that I question any of their input, because I don't know them.

Same old "he said" "she said"
 
They can stand by their story, and rightfully so, if it was reported honestly. But, doubt can be cast on the women who were part of the story. The Times probably did a great job, but the women who they got the info from could always be in question.

Not that I question any of their input, because I don't know them.

Same old "he said" "she said"

It sounds like she has a witness to the event, so not really.
 
Remember when they ran a front page story about John McCain's affair a few weeks before the election? What affair? Who cares, damage done, they accomplished their task.

The only difference is that this is Trump we are talking about. The man has completely changed the conventional norms of American politics, if not rendered them obselete.
 
I wonder how many people lobbing criticisms actually read the NYT report. The report points out Trump's Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality when he is around or otherwise talking about women. This is not some new revelation, but something anyone with a functional television in the last 20 years or more would know. All the article does is move beyond his public commentary over the years and explores his private and professional interactions with women (good and bad), some of which has been in the public domain for some time. Trump was also interviewed and his side was presented.

As for Rowanne Brewer Lane, I think she just doesn't like what some of the other women had to say because there isn't a discrepancy between what she said happened on Fox N' Friends and what she was quoted as saying in the New York Times report. Oops.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people lobbing criticisms actually read the NYT report. The report points out Trump's Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality when he is around or otherwise talking about women. This is not some new revelation, but something anyone with a functional television in the last 20 years or more would know. All the article does is move beyond his public commentary over the years and explores his private and professional interactions with women (good and bad), some of which has been in the public domain for some time. Trump was also interviewed and his side was presented.

As for Rowanne Brewer Lane, I think she just doesn't like what some of the other women had to say because there isn't a discrepancy between what she said happened on Fox N' Friends and what she was quoted as saying in the New York Times report. Oops.

Welp, I read the article. In it many women agreed that he wasn't rude or sexist towards women. The biggest valid gripe that I could see in that article was of him commenting on women's weight. Most everything else negative is a he said she said deal. Now we have one of those women coming forth and saying "Hey! That's taken out of context!" (paraphrasing).... it makes you wonder just how many of those negative things were just taking out of context in order to put the worst light possible on the situation. Hell, part of the story is about Trumps supposed rape of his first wife, which they admit that she said isn't true. Why even include that if the story isn't true? To put Trump in the worst light possible of course.
 
Welp, I read the article. In it many women agreed that he wasn't rude or sexist towards women. The biggest valid gripe that I could see in that article was of him commenting on women's weight. Most everything else negative is a he said she said deal. Now we have one of those women coming forth and saying "Hey! That's taken out of context!" (paraphrasing).... it makes you wonder just how many of those negative things were just taking out of context in order to put the worst light possible on the situation. Hell, part of the story is about Trumps supposed rape of his first wife, which they admit that she said isn't true. Why even include that if the story isn't true? To put Trump in the worst light possible of course.

There are two things in the article that I don't mind dismissing. The first is the supposed rape of his first wife. She is now essentially saying that she lied and, though the timing of her recanting that accusation is suspicious, I'm inclined to believe her because all sorts of horrible things are said and done in the fallout of divorce proceedings. The second is the model who complained about him criticizing her weight. Sorry, but that's just the nature of the modeling business. As for the rest, I'm inclined to believe that it's probably true. Not because the NYT reported it, but because it is reflective of his public outbursts and behavior spanning decades.
 
"We believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself."

Well, clearly the writers of an editorial with a clear and obvious aim and purpose are more trustworthy about what a person thinks and says than the person themselves.
 
Well, clearly the writers of an editorial with a clear and obvious aim and purpose are more trustworthy about what a person thinks and says than the person themselves.

I can see it ...
ROWANNE: "Michael, you know I wasn't saying Donald was "Crossing the line".
MICHAEL BARBARO: "I know you said that but I knew what you meant. I'm a trained journalist ... I can do that. You wouldn't understand."
 
Paglia:

The drums had been beating for weeks about a major New York Times expose in the works that would demolish Trump once and for all by revealing his sordid lifetime of misogyny. When it finally appeared as a splashy front-page story this past Sunday (originally titled “Crossing the Line: Trump’s Private Conduct with Women”), I was off in the woods pursuing my Native American research. On Monday, after seeing countless exultant references to this virtuoso takedown, I finally read the article—and laughed out loud throughout. Can there be any finer demonstration of the insularity and mediocrity of today’s Manhattan prestige media? Wow, millionaire workaholic Donald Trump chased young, beautiful, willing women and liked to boast about it. Jail him now! Meanwhile, the New York Times remains mute about Bill Clinton’s long record of crude groping and grosser assaults—not one example of which could be found to taint Trump.

Blame for this fiasco falls squarely upon the New York Times editors who delegated to two far too young journalists, Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the complex task of probing the glitzy, exhibitionistic world of late-twentieth-century beauty pageants, gambling casinos, strip clubs, and luxury resorts. Neither Barbaro, a 2002 graduate of Yale, nor Twohey, a 1998 graduate of Georgetown University, had any frame of reference for sexual analysis aside from the rote political correctness that has saturated elite American campuses for nearly 40 years. Their prim, priggish formulations in this awkwardly disconnected article demonstrate the embarrassing lack of sophistication that passes for theoretical expertise among their over-paid and under-educated professors.

When I saw the reporters’ defensive interview on Monday with CNN anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman, I felt sorry for the earnest, owlish Barbaro, who seems like a nice fellow who has simply wandered out of his depth. But Twohey, with her snippy, bright and shiny careerism, took a page from the slippery Hillary playbook in the way she blatheringly evaded any direct answer to a pointed question about how Rowanne Brewer Lane’s pleasantly flirtatious first meeting with Trump at a crowded 1990 pool party at Mar-a-Lago ended up being called “a debasing face-to-face encounter” in the Times. The hidden agenda of advocacy journalism has rarely been caught so red-handed.
Camille Paglia: PC feminists misfire again, as fearful elite media can?t touch Donald Trump - Salon.com

I like this woman!
 
This is the same NYT that ran a fluff piece on Hillary's Bold Vision while simultaneously saying that her vision is subtle and hard to understand: all in the same article. I've rarely seen some of these media outlets be so obviously in the tank for a candidate.

There are a lot of words to describe what a Hillary Clinton administration would look like, subtle isn't even in the first 10,000.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom