Presstitutes and Mainstream Media outlets for regime change

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I thought it might be good to have a thread that exposes the shills in the Mainstream Media, particularly those who push for regime change, no-fly zones. One could say that pretty much all Western Mainstream media does that, but some are particularly aggressive.

One example is those who praise the White Helmets which is another branch of the al-Nusra terrorists. (For the White Helmets see this thread).

http://www.workers.org/2016/09/21/white-helmets-pawns-for-u-s-militarism/#.V-Rz_WyQK1u
NBC News praised the featured group as “Angels on the Front Line.” The Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal sang the movie’s praises and White Helmets’ “selfless, humanitarian role.”

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/seven-steps-of-highly-effective-manipulators/
Nicholas Kristof/New York Times

The “White Helmets” campaign has been highly successful because of uncritical media promotion. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times was an advocate of the NATO/US attack on Libya. According to him, villagers who had been shot, injured and their homes destroyed were not bitter, they were thankful! . “Hugs from Libyans” is how he viewed it. It was, of course, nonsense, helping to pave the way in the invasion and destruction of the country.

Now Kristof is uncritically promoting the White Helmets, aiding and abetting their political and propaganda message seeking foreign intervention in Syria.

Here is the image from Nicholas Kristof
unnamed3-300x213.jpg


More on Nicholas Kristof:
Nicholas_Kristof_on_Ai_Weiwei.jpg


Cse636cW8AAM1dG.jpg


Yes, but then why support Hillary Clinton, a bloodthirsty inveterate liar and warmonger, all the way? Does Kristof not owe it to his readers to call that out too? Well, not if you are a presstitute for the establishment, even if wearing the progressive/neoliberal colors.

Here is a bit from Wikipedia on him:
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof
Nicholas Donabet Kristof (born April 27, 1959) is an American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001, and The Washington Post says that he "rewrote opinion journalism" with his emphasis on human rights abuses and social injustices, such as human trafficking and the Darfur conflict.[1] Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has described Kristof as an "honorary African" for shining a spotlight on neglected conflicts.

>Snip<

Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and The New Yorker, a Harvard classmate, has said: "I’m not surprised to see him emerge as the moral conscience of our generation of journalists. I am surprised to see him as the Indiana Jones of our generation of journalists.”[7] Bill Clinton said in September 2009: "There is no one in journalism, anywhere in the United States at least, who has done anything like the work he has done to figure out how poor people are actually living around the world, and what their potential is....So every American citizen who cares about this should be profoundly grateful that someone in our press establishment cares enough about this to haul himself all around the world to figure out what's going on....I am personally in his debt, as are we all."[8]

Kristof is a member of the board of overseers of Harvard University, where he was chief marshal of commencement for his 25th reunion, and is a member of the board of trustees of the Association of American Rhodes Scholars. Joyce Barnathan, president of the International Center for Journalists, said in a 2013 statement: "Nick Kristof is the conscience of international journalism."[9]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation says that a page one article by Kristof in January 1997 about child mortality in the developing world helped direct the couple toward global health as a focus of philanthropy. A framed copy of that article is in the gallery of the Gates Foundation.

>Snip<

In 1990, Kristof and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, earned a Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for their reporting on the pro-democracy student movement and the related Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

>Snip<

In 2011, Kristof was named one of seven "Top American Leaders" by the Harvard Kennedy School and The Washington Post. "His writing has reshaped the field of opinion journalism," The Washington Post explained in granting the award.[1] Earlier, in 2007, U.S. News & World Report named Kristof one of "America's Best Leaders."

So Nicholas Kristof certainly has the full backing of the establishment and numerous accolades from around the world. In that perceived position of being the moral conscience of todays generation of journalist, he is a powerful tool of the empire in their quest for regime change, as long as it is couched in being for 'democracy and human rights'.
 
Chapter 12 of The Protocols (regardless of who wrote them) dealing with the Press is of interest for this thread. That is very much the way the elite/deep state operates:
4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

>snip<

8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

>snip<

12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
 
The board of the New York Times must have seen this thread and wanted to make our work easier, by qualifying the whole board as presstitutes for regime change. This latest article from NYT is one of the most anti-Russian rages for a while and is obviously prepping the peeps for war. Truth is not something that is valued highly at the NYT who sees themselves as judge, jury and executioner. Turning what is written 180 degrees and you get closer to the truth. Alternatively substitute Putin with Obama and Kerry with Lavrov and it all becomes clear :cool2:

_http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
September 29, 2016

President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.

Russia has tried hard to pin the blame for the airline crash on Ukraine. But the new report, produced by prosecutors from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine, confirms earlier findings. It uses strict standards of evidence and meticulously documents not only the deployment of the Russian missile system that caused the disaster but also Moscow’s continuing cover-up.

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin, told The Times last week that his government is determined to bring both Russia and the individuals who fired the missile to justice.

Some Western officials have accused Russia of war crimes, charges that could be pursued through international channels, even if Moscow blocks a formal referral to the International Criminal Court. New sanctions against Russia also should be considered. Mr. Putin will undoubtedly fight any such action, using his veto on the Security Council, but whatever his response, the United States should lend its support to Ukraine’s quest for accountability.

There seems no holding Mr. Putin to account in Syria. For months he has pretended to negotiate on a political solution to a five-year-old civil war between his client, President Bashar al-Assad, and rebels backed by the United States and some Arab nations. But despite pleas from Secretary of State John Kerry, who has spent an enormous amount of time and effort negotiating two separate (and short-lived) cease-fires, Russian and Syrian forces, backed by Iranian ground troops, have continued the slaughter.

Over recent days, Mr. Putin has again shown his true colors with air attacks that have included powerful bunker-busting bombs that can destroy underground hospitals and safety zones where civilians seek shelter. On Sept. 19, Russia bombed an aid convoy, which like hospitals and civilians are not supposed to be targeted under international law.

On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry threatened to withdraw an American team from Geneva where the two sides had established a center to collaborate on a cease-fire. But that is likely to have little effect, and Mr. Kerry has few, if any, diplomatic cards to play.

President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria. And Mr. Putin may be assuming that Mr. Obama is unlikely to confront Russia in his final months and with an American election season in full swing. But with the rebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat of falling to the government, administration officials said that such a response is again under consideration.

Mr. Putin fancies himself a man on a mission to restore Russia to greatness. Russia could indeed be a great force for good. Yet his unconscionable behavior — butchering civilians in Syria and Ukraine, annexing Crimea, computer-hacking American government agencies, crushing dissent at home — suggests that the furthest thing from his mind is becoming a constructive partner in the search for peace.
 
Philip Gordon from the Washington Post is another presstitute raising his hand with this article, which by Sott has been appropiately truthified:

Washington Post repeats - and ups - US threats: 'Putin is making a mistake in Syria — and Russia will pay the price'
Philip Gordon
The Washington Post
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:03 UTC

One of Vice President Biden's favorite sayings on foreign policy is to never tell another man or woman what's in his or her interest. That is a good general rule; I heard him repeat the saying many times while I was working on Middle East policy in the White House. But when it comes to Russia's recent actions in Syria, I believe the rule needs to be broken. Russian President Vladimir Putin may fancy himself a master strategist, but in Syria he is making a mistake that will come back to haunt him — and Russia — for a long time to come.

Comment: What a load of BS - and just in the first paragraph! First, what Biden says in regards to his own intentions have nothing whatsoever to do with his actions. He is a messenger boy and profiteer of the US Empire. Period. Second, the author of this article is using this "critique" of Biden as a launching pad to once again parrot the not-so-veiled threat of US mouthpiece John Kirby which the Russians (and the rest of the thinking world) can see right through.


With the Sept. 12 U.S.-Russia cease-fire agreement, the Obama administration offered Putin a way forward that from a Russian perspective could only have been described as a clean win. If fully implemented, the agreement would have prevented regime change in Damascus — a major Putin redline — for the foreseeable future; boosted Russia's position as a major power in the Middle East; facilitated military and intelligence cooperation with the United States against terrorist groups; diminished a costly conflict; and secured Russia's Mediterranean base. From Moscow's perspective, that would not be a bad day's work.

However, by supporting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the merciless bombardment of Aleppo, Russia is destroying the cease-fire agreement. In so doing, Putin is imposing serious costs not only on defenseless Syrians, but on Russia itself.


Comment: Oy. Wrong again. The Pentagoons and al-CIA-duh smashed any chances for "a way forward" in Syria when they did these three things:

1.) They didn't (because they couldn't) separate the so-called "moderate" opposition from ISIS and other head-choppers. Over 300 "cease fire" violations because of this - while Russia and Syria kept to their end of the deal.

2.) When US and allied forces "accidentally" bombed and killed over 80 members of the Syrian Arab Army (and wounded over a hundred more) in Deir Ezzor, they effectively ended the "cease fire" there too. This was no mere blunder as the offensive against ISIS was strategically crucial and actually served as air support to enable an ISIS offensive only moments after the airstrike.

3.) And blaming and vilifying Syria and Russia for the UN humanitarian aid convoy attack - likely perpetrated by the US and/or Jihadi forces and using this event to bolster the big lie was the final nail in the coffin.

But don't expect government shills like the author of this article to take actual facts into account. He's got a job to do.

Get your barf bag ready...



The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said Russia is to blame for the continuing violence in Syria, saying, "What Russia is doing and sponsoring is not counter-terrorism. It is barbarism." (Reuters)

There was never any guarantee that the U.S-Russia deal would work even if Russia had shown goodwill. Moscow is right that it was always going to be difficult to separate true terrorists in Syria (like the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) from the "moderate" opposition groups fighting alongside them. JFS and the Islamic State, moreover, would have every reason to violate the cease-fire, given that its implementation would lead to U.S.-Russian military cooperation against them. It is also possible that the Syrian regime bears greater responsibility than Russia for having bombed the U.N. convoy trying to get aid to Aleppo a few days after the cease-fire started — possibly to retaliate for the accidental U.S.-led coalition strike on Syrian forces in Deir al-Zour a few days before. Additionally, just as the United States always found it difficult to control allies like former Afghan president Hamid Karzai and former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki (despite having hundreds of thousands of American troops in those countries), Russia may not be able to fully control Assad.


Comment: More obfuscation and monkey-wrenching ideas thrown into the mix. What the author doesn't mention is that the Syrian government delayed the delivery of humanitarian aid precisely because Costello road and other areas were not secure from the head-choppers - which was translated by Western media as "Assad is letting his people die!!". The author is obviously just attempting to further demonize the Assad government. And the idea of bombing the convoy as a possible act of revenge for Deir al-Zour?? It doesn't get any more warped than this folks. Honestly.


That said, a good-faith effort to implement the deal would have offered Russia a better way forward than the one they appear to have chosen, for several reasons.

First, Russia and Assad cannot win, even with a massive bombing campaign. After five years of war and the loss of more than 100,000 soldiers and militia fighters, the regime simply does not have the manpower to take and hold territory in all of Syria. Even after all the killing and displacement, Syria remains a majority Sunni country, and many of them will continue to fight against the regime — backed and armed by Saudis, Turks, Qataris. As Putin helps flatten Aleppo, he may be thinking about Chechnya, the Russian republic he repressed with equally brutal force in 1999. But he may be better off thinking about the Russian experience in Afghanistan. Putin's widespread massacres of civilians in Syria could very well result in terrorist attacks against Russia by Muslims outraged by Russia's actions.


Comment: Just wow. The author is batting 100 on the 'reality creator' scale. First of all, Russia and the democratically elected government of Syria are winning; Assad's government is still standing. Next up is the whole idea that the majority Sunni's are against Assad's rule - they're not. It's only the radicalized Sunnis - mostly mercenaries sent in from other countries - that are there to impose their violent idea of governance on the secular and religiously tolerant Syria (inconvenient facts to the propagandist who penned this article). As for Putin's putting down Chechen terrorism, maybe the author should ask the vast majority of peace and law-abiding Muslims in Chechnya how they feel about Putin's "brutal" force there.

And lastly, Mr. reality creator's punch line: The threat that Mr. Putin's work in Syria "could very well result in terrorist attacks against Russia by Muslims outraged by Russia's actions". If US. support for Daesh, al-Nusra etc. is any indication, this will occur precisely because the US has ordered it to.


Second, Russia could pay a price for Aleppo in its relations with Europe and the Arab world. The Russian economy is already suffering badly as a result of low oil prices, Western sanctions, and costly military interventions in Ukraine and Syria. Now, whatever prospects there were for the lifting of European sanctions or the expansion of Russian energy cooperation with Europe or Saudi Arabia will be greatly diminished, ensuring continued Russian economic pain. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council countries should consider their own economic sanctions on Russia to raise the costs and make clear their displeasure.

Comment: In other words, "Keep defying our narrative Russia and we'll continue to press our vassal states not to do business with you. And then you'll really start hurting! We're Murica! We're all-powerful! Just you watch! We hate you! Why don't you listen to us already?! Mwwwaaaa..."


Third, Putin will now have to consider the response from the United States. It is no secret that the Obama administration has been determined to avoid any escalation in Syria that could lead to the direct use of U.S. military force. But Washington has been supporting the anti-Assad opposition in various ways, and may now — faced with humiliation and few other options — consider additions to that assistance that will increase costs on Russia. (Arming the opposition with shoulder-fired missiles capable of hitting Russian and Syrian planes over Aleppo is among the options.)


Comment: Again wow: The threat of arming (who exactly now?) within Syria - to fight against Russia. Well, the US and other countries have been doing that already, and where has it gotten the collapsing Empire? So, the Washington Post would just seem to be upping the threats on behalf of the Washington's war-mongers. Can you say bought and paid for 'military-industrial-complex mouthpiece'?


The posture of the next administration is also important to consider. It is hard to say what a President Donald Trump would do in Syria, and he has taken positions so close to Russia on other issues that Putin may be counting on a pliant Trump actually supporting his plans. But in the more likely scenario that Hillary Clinton becomes the next U.S. president, Putin could be facing a U.S. leader who has long supported a no-fly zone in Syria and robust support for the opposition, has expressed skepticism about Russia's intentions in Syria, and will be looking to more clearly reassert American leadership in the Middle East.


Comment: Oh yeah. You know, this article would not have been complete without the author trying to scare voters about Trump because Trump is so "pro-Putin" - and alluding to the Big Lie that Putin is somehow trying to effect the Presidential elections. But rest assured, if Killary gets elected, you can be sure that she'll be thorough in escalating the conflict and making the situation far worse than it already is. "So watch out Mr. Putin! Hillary isn't afraid of killing millions - you'll see."


U.S. diplomats say they have not given up on the cease-fire and that the original arrangement remains on the table. Ultimately, only Putin can decide what is in his interest, but he still has time to make the right call about what exactly those interests are.

Comment: "There's still time left to bow down before the Empire, Putin! Don't make us expose our treachery to humanity any further!"


Philip Gordon is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2013 to 2015 he was special assistant to President Obama and White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf.
 
This thread's a great idea, but it'll probably need it's own dedicated server to handle all the relevant posts. ;)
 
Here is an article by Ron Paul that makes a list of journalists and news organisations that supported Hillary and promoted her and her propaganda. The list is according to Ron Paul, so thus not verified. That would need a bit of digger, but I think it is a good starting point:
https://www.sott.net/article/334335-Ron-Paul-reveals-hit-list-of-fake-news-journalists

Ron Paul reveals hit list of 'fake news' journalists

Former congressman Ron Paul revealed a list of "fake news" journalists he claims are responsible for "bogus wars" and lies about Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election. Journalists from CNN, the New York Times, and the Guardian are included.

"This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars," according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."

"These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'" he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"

journalists_wiki_tw.jpg


Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from. In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the exact sources of the list unknown.

CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing."

The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election, with a surge in new subscriptions.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump.

Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.

So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election.

Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting third parties with filtering the news.

That Facebook's Zuckerberg should think himself fit to the arbiter and thus filter of news is alarming, but it is their way of imposing complete control over news.
 
If this report is true, Trump had a personal Pow-Wow with media heads:

Trump "Exploded" At Media Execs During Off-The-Record Meeting: "It Was A F--king Firing Squad"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-21/trump-exploded-media-execs-during-record-meeting-it-was-f-king-firing-squad

Nov 22, 2016 - Earlier today we reported that in a "summit" organized by Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, executives and anchors from the major US media outlets, including CNN president Jeff Zucker, ABC News president James Goldston, Fox News co-presidents Bill Shine and Jack Abernethy, and NBC News president Deborah Turness, visited Donald Trump at his Trump Tower penthouse for an off the record meeting.

Courtesy of the Post, we have a complete list of the participants at the Trump media meeting: the hour-long powwow included top execs from network and cable news channels. Among the attendees were NBC’s Deborah Turness, Lester Holt and Chuck Todd, ABC’s James Goldston, George Stephanopoulos, David Muir and Martha Raddatz, CBS’ Norah O’Donnell John Dickerson, Charlie Rose, Christopher Isham and Gayle King, Fox News’ Bill Shine, Jack Abernethy, Jay Wallace, Suzanne Scott, MSNBC’s Phil Griffin and CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Erin Burnett.

The contents of what was discussed were initially unclear.

Now, according to the Post and Politico, we learn that the President-elect "exploded at media bigs in an off-the-record Trump Tower powow on Monday."

“It was like a f—ing firing squad,” one source told the Post.

According to the Post's recound of the conversation, “Trump started with Jeff Zucker and said I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed…."

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added. A second source confirmed the encounter.

The Post adds that “the meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks…"

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.

“Trump didn’t say Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.

“Gayle did not stand up, but asked some question, ‘How do you propose we the media work with you?’ Chuck Todd asked some pretty pointed questions. David Muir asked how are you going to cope living in DC while your family is in NYC? It was a horrible meeting."

Politico adds further details, according to which "Trump complained about photos of himself that NBC used that he found unflattering, the source said. Trump turned to NBC News President Deborah Turness at one point, the source said, and told her the network won’t run a nice picture of him, instead choosing “this picture of me,” as he made a face with a double chin. Turness replied that they had a “very nice” picture of him on their website at the moment."

Amusingly, since the meeting was off the record, meaning the participants agreed not to talk about the substance of the conversations, it means they will most likely be unable to confirm or deny the Post's report.

Politco's recollection of events was slightly less dramatic:

The New York Post on Monday afternoon portrayed a much more heated meeting, including a quote from one source who said the encounter was “like a f–ing firing squad.” The Post also said Trump called CNN journalists “liars” and that they should be “ashamed.” The source who spoke with POLITICO characterized the meeting as less intense, and said the discussion included Trump expressing the possibility of a “reset” of the tumultuous relationship between the president-elect and the media and that all he wants is “fairness.”

Asked how he defines fairness by a network executive, Trump said simply, “The truth.” But aside from the few moments of contention in the beginning, the source said the meeting was largely substantive.

Politico also adds that Trump, flanked by chief of staff Reince Priebus and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway at the table, also expressed annoyance at the protective press pool and the complaints over him ditching the press when he went out to dinner last week with his family after reporters were advised he was in for the night. But Priebus assured the attendees that the protective press pool will be taken care of and it would all work out.

Other attendees at the meeting from Trump's team included chief strategist Stephen Bannon, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, spokesman Jason Miller, and Republican National Committee chief strategist and communications director Sean Spicer.

Asked for comment, Miller referred POLITICO to Conway’s comments to reporters after the meeting, in which she echoed the sentiments made in the meeting about turning over a new leaf with the media.

“There was no need to mend fences,” Conway said. “It was very cordial, very genial. But it was very candid and very honest. From my own perspective, it’s great to hit the reset button.”

Conway later on Monday hit back at the New York Post report. “He did not explode in anger,” she said.

While one can have a subjective interpretuation of the nuances at the meating, one thing was clear: Trump's attempt at a 'reset' will be frowned at by the media which is not used to this kind of treatment, even if the "kindler, gentler" version of events as reported by Politico is accurate.

It also means that what has already been a conventional war between the various US media organizations and Trump, is likely about to go nuclear.
 
Nicholas Donabet Kristof (born April 27, 1959) is an American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He has written an op-ed column for The New York Times since November 2001

Interesting timing, shows up just months after 911.
 
Back
Top Bottom