Thread: Memo to “all company employees” from @nytimes publisher A.G. Sulzberger regarding this: nytimes.com/2019/08/25/us/…. “This unprecedented campaign appears designed....More
...to harass and embarrass
anyone affiliated with independent news organizations that have asked tough questions and brought uncomfortable truths to light...
...The New York Times, which has distinguished itself
with fearless and fair coverage of the president, is one of the main targets of this assault. Unable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting, political operatives have been scouring social media...
...and other sources to find any possibly embarrassing information
on anyone associated with The Times, no matter their rank, role or actual influence on our journalism. Their goal is to silence critics and undermine the public’s faith in independent journalism...
This represents an escalation of an ongoing campaign
against the free press. For years the president has used terms like “fake news” and “enemy of the people” to demonize journalists and journalism. Now, the political operatives behind this campaign will...
will argue that they are “reporting” on news organizations
in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures. They are not. They are using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain...
I want to thank the journalists at The Times and elsewhere
who brave this type of pressure daily to bring essential information to the public. Under intense scrutiny and routine harassment, they remain undeterred....
When our reporters learned of this campaign to attack journalists, they did what our colleagues around
the globe always do. They went to work and started reporting....
But I also want to be clear: No organization is above
scrutiny, including The Times. We have high standards, own our mistakes and always strive to do better. If anyone — even those acting in bad faith — brings legitimate problems to our attention...
we’ll look into them and respond appropriately. It is imperative that all of us remain thoughtful about how our words and actions reflect on The Times, particularly during this period of sustained pressure and scrutiny...
We all play a part in upholding our commitment to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
What’s the proper response to a campaign like this?
Even in periods of pressure and change, The New York
Times has the benefit of the long view. We have served the public for 168 years now. We’ve covered 33 presidents. We know that a free press is a vital guardian of all other freedoms in our society.
We have been attacked and threatened before, and we know how
to do our jobs under fire.
So our response is the same as always. We will continue
to cover this administration like any other: fairly, aggressively and fearlessly,
wherever the facts lead.” END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 2025 number is, of course, the tragic result of the crash of American Eagle Flight 5342 and an Army helicopter over the Potomac River in Washington on Jan. 29. RIP.
Footnote to this footnote: In the hours after this crash Trump blamed “DEI” as a contributing factor. No evidence for this has turned up in any subsequent investigation. x.com/ac360/status/1…x.com/ac360/status/1…
Before this story slides permanently down the memory hole, a few words about the 2025 Kennedy Center Honors telecast.
Haven’t seen final numbers on this, but the Trump-hosted Honors on CBS on Tuesday was, semi-officially, a ratings disaster. A bomb.
What went wrong?
A 🧵:
This year’s program drew its lowest ratings ever—by far (down 35 percent overall from 2024, and down 50 pct among younger viewers, per still-preliminary figures).
The Honors has been a very solid TV draw since it began in 1978. Not this year. And maybe not any longer.
Normally, this kind of catastrophic audience loss would bring about a reassessment, if not outright panic. How to fix it? Was it the honorees? Was it the timing (airing two days before Christmas)? Or was it maybe…the host?
Nerdy but true: A network affiliate like Sinclair can pre-empt a network show a limited number of times (depends on the contract), but then is in breach of its affiliate agreement and faces penalties or cancellation. So Sinclair is likely on a short leash here.
Notable that Sinclair is scheduling news programs to replace Kimmel. Some affiliate contracts permit multiple pre-emptions for news, though usually the breaking kind
Even nerdier: Networks used to need affiliates to distribute their shows, but in the streaming era, this is b
less the case. ABC could go to all streaming and bypass Sinclair altogether. Local stations still have value (name recognition, promotional power), but less each day.
Your future guardian of America’s health, a short story:
The outbreak of measles in Samoa starting in September 2019 created a panic. Schools closed, Christmas events were cancelled, lockdowns ensued. More…
People stayed inside their houses, and the unvaccinated hung red flags or red clothing in their front yards both as a warning and to signal to emergency health workers they wanted to be vaccinated.
The U.S. and other countries rushed in medical teams and vaccines…
Even with draconian measures, by early January, about 3 percent of the island’s entire population had been infected, and 83 people died, most of them infants and children.
“Assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations” = do as we please with your money.
[Trump] “will surround himself with loyalists eager to carry out his wishes, even if they violate traditional norms against executive overreach” = break the law….
“Bucking the Justice Department’s tradition of political independence” = turn the Justice Department into an instrument of political retribution.
“Other Cabinet officials balked at breaching what they viewed as ethical and legal boundaries” = stopped before breaking the law…