Folks, this is like McDonalds writing about how great the burgers at Wendy’s are. In Thursday’s print edition, The New York Times dithered away with a 750-word-plus story heaping praise on New York City competitor The Wall Street Journal for publishing a Wednesday editorial slamming the credibility of President Trump.
What’s more embarrassing for this liberal paper is how they wasted our time with nearly three times the number of words on this story by Sydney Ember than they did on a 290-word Reuters wire item on how millions are suffering from starvation in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen.
“The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is known for its conservative tone, but an editorial the newspaper published online Tuesday night would stand out even in the pages of its left-leaning peers,” Ember began.
Ember hyped what “an extraordinarily harsh rebuke of President Trump” it was in referring to Trump as “his own worst enemy” that’s hurting his administration. Of course, WSJ is free to publish whatever editorials it pleases and praise or criticize the President, but The Times only cares if it falls into the latter category.
She twice briefly noted that the paper have been negative of Trump in the past and amplified this editorial since it matches The Times’s narrative:
The paper’s editorial and opinion writers have been critical of Mr. Trump in the past, although the language of this editorial, which ran in Wednesday’s paper, seemed intended to remind the president to focus on his stated goals rather than distractions. And the timing of the editorial — during a week in which Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, is testifying....and the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Republican health care bill — is almost certainly not a coincidence.
The story went onto gleefully give details touting the troubles Rupert Murdoch’s media empire have encountered in recent weeks and his bid to expand his share of the U.K. network Sky News.
As if Ember were trying to publish a writing sample for employment at The Journal, she concluded in part:
The Journal’s editorial continued to attract notice on Wednesday — on CNN, Wolf Blitzer called it “very, very tough” — but it was not the first time the paper had tweaked Mr. Trump. During the Republican primary season, when Mr. Trump was one of many candidates to be the party’s presidential nominee, it took an amused, sometimes disdainful attitude toward him, which did not go unnoticed by its target.
