New York Times, You’re Full of Shit

*Please note: The sarcasm-alert system in the following piece is set at HIGH.

In the summer of 2015, not to be outdone by the rest of America’s media, serious and otherwise, the esteemed New York Times was busying itself rolling out the red carpet for a Presidential wannabe appropriately named “Trump.”

They gave that fucker attention galore, and the New York Times’ liberal readers ate that shit up. In a dignified manner, of course.

Now we have an ego-drunk reality TV star who’s pushed all the other clowns out of the Republican clown car and is drivin’ that thing a billion miles an hour, leaving a path of meanness every-fucking-where he’s been.

It was all a big joke. Until it wasn’t.

The New York Times is now trying to undo their earlier, stupid-er reporting decisions regarding Mr. Trump.

So a few weeks ago, the Times dug around and threw together a long exposé about Donald Trump’s big bad misogyny problem. (Misogyny, by the way, is what we used to call male chauvinism. Same crap, new word.)

Well, no shit, Sherlock—Donald Trump is an asshole to women, but instead of bringing this up a year ago, the Times and their peers were parading Trump around like a carnival attraction.

And look where that got us.

Then the Times put out another explosive, shocking, etc. exposé saying that America’s favorite jackass doesn’t pay his bills, and wins at his little financial game by way of borrowing money, using it all up making himself richer, then leaving everyone else for dead when he moves on, which, fucking duh, is what he’s been doing all along.

This is not new information, New York Times.

And the other day, the high-minded Times had an ah-ha moment and announced that there are more old, white people to vote for Trump than they previously thought.

Sigh.

The problem we have here is that even supposedly legitimate news outlets would rather throw a drink in our face for shock value than actually vet a candidate, including the one they’re hot for right now, but more on that in a sec.

I suppose we could blame all this on John McCain for forcing Sarah Palin on us without vetting her first back in ’08 in his last-ditch attempt to beat that young whippersnapper Barack Obama. Now we’re stuck with Palin and her whole trashy family.

And we’re stuck with a news media that treats the news like a reality show.

But like I said, and like we all know, America eats this shit up.

And since putting this sunburned caveman on TV and in newspapers and magazines aplenty proved to be a sure thing, the media, including highly-regarded publications like The New York Times, crammed him down our throats like a forced blow job.

Yes, that’s disgusting. And that’s exactly what they did.

And now the venerated (remember the sarcasm alert!) New York Times finally decides it’s time to vet the man, that maybe they can divert this runaway train.

Well, New York Times, it’s too fucking late for that.

See, the Times picked their horse back in January, and now they seem to have realized they bet on a lame horse that might not handily wipe the floor with the Republicans’ only-man-standing in November after all.

But they’re all-in with her. They don’t have a Plan B.

They’ve blown their wad on a bad candidate who they’re damned and determined to prop up.

When the Times endorsed Hillary Clinton, the op-ed that read like an obligatory high school assignment with its amateur, touchy-feely tone and serious lack of substance.

That’s when it became very clear to me how brainwashed Americans are. Even really smart Americans.

And the Times just keeps on with their keen reporting skills, putting together one piece after another underestimating Bernie Sanders, overestimating Hillary Clinton, and trying to explain the “rise of Donald Trump,” words which ought to scare the shit out of anyone.

I had honestly been going around thinking I could count on the New York Times for intelligence, critical thinking, and serious journalism.

Well, fuck me.

Seems Fox News isn’t the only bullshit news source out there.

Thinking for yourself is difficult when what we gobble up is what they feed us.

They feed us Trump and his chest-pounding he-man act—we eat it up.

They endlessly try to convince us of Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, which no one can actually name, but never mind that—we eat it up.

They tell us Bernie Sanders has no chance, Trump is a fluke, and Hillary has “experience”—we go ahead and believe them.

Lemme just say, while Trump may be loathsome, he’s in the lead fair and square over on the Republican side, frightening though that is.

The Republicans were already scary, though, and all Trump’s doing is bringing their skeletons out to play.

But something’s not so fair and square over on the Democrats’ side when, in the midst of a very tight race, the winner is declared before six states have voted, one of them being the huge state of California.

Just how much sense does it make that the Associated Press declared Hillary Clinton the nominee on Monday, June 6th, before six states have even voted on June 7th? How the hell do you think that makes those voters feel about their vote?

The AP told us the delegates had been tallied and Hillary got ’em all, and that was that, nothing to see here, move along, you kids go on home now.

How fucking gullible are we, y’all?

Why do we even bother to vote if this little country club was deciding everything all along?

Hell, if we’d known this sooner, we could have avoided all those primaries and caucuses and skipped right to the end of the book.

By the Democratic party’s own rules, the delegates and super-delegates don’t actually vote until the convention on July 25th, yet Hillary’s already going around the track running her victory lap.

Meanwhile, the state of California is still counting ballots. Like three million ballots. 

And meanwhile, tustvote.org has a lawsuit brewing over election rigging.

I’m talking about election rigging that’s happening right now, right here in the United States of America. I’m not talking about some faraway land filled with uncivilized brown people. (Sarcasm meter reminder: HIGH)

This isn’t just sour grapes over Hillary’s supposed nomination. This is happening.

So what does the New York Times do?

They panic.

And they complain. This time it’s a whine-fest about how Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race.

Because like I said, they’re thinking they might have bet on the wrong horse if Bernie’s still in the race.

But the Times doesn’t get to give Bernie Sanders campaign advice.

The New York Times had plenty of time and opportunities to amply report on the Sanders campaign, but instead Bernie Sanders has barely made it onto their pages.

New York Times, you’re full of shit, and your begging is unbecoming.

Jeez, I feel like we’re being force-fed castor oil in a 1950s fallout shelter.

Look, come the convention on July 25th, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, then so be it. Yeah, it’d be great to have a female President; it really would.

It’s just that I prefer a large dose of integrity with my politicians, male, female, or other.

Make no mistake, and don’t just ignore it; she’s riddled with scandals and dirty laundry and repeatedly inconsistent positions and actions.

Obviously, Donald Trump represents an embarrassing revelation of our nation’s wretched underside, but Hillary Clinton is no prize, and there’s no sense in pretending she is.

I don’t care how many over-40 liberals try to tell me she’s good enough—she’s not even close to good enough.

She’s owned by Wall Street. She’s pro-GMOs, pro-fracking, pro-big oil, pro-big pharma, and she loves herself some wars and weapons, as evidenced by her time as Secretary of State.

Hers is not the behavior of a liberal.

Hillary Clinton is deeply entrenched in this capitalism-run-amok system, but by golly, she’s been declared the Democratic party’s candidate, and we’re supposed to believe it’s all on the up and up.

Hillary for the win, whether we want her or not!

So tell me this; how is it that two of the most loathed people in the country are the best we can come up with for candidates in November?

My advise to liberals who don’t want to move to the right, is don’t go all Hillary-blind, because she’s no liberal.

If you’re okay with more of the same old shit then yeah, Hillary might work for you.

If you’re okay with our government’s arrogance and our population’s ignorance as the country lurches backwards into third-world conditions such as extreme wealth imbalance and political corruption, then Hillary might work for you.

If you’re not okay with all this status-quo-ing and the New York Times’ erudite bullshit, then you might not want to jump on that Hillary bandwagon just yet.

Keep your eyes, your ears, and your options open. Because that lesser of two evils crap has expired.

Now, to the New York Times, that serious news outlet that wet itself with excitement over Donald Trump, endorsed an incredibly poor candidate in Hillary Clinton, and now wants us to believe what they’re saying about both Trump and Clinton, I say:

It’s too fucking late. You are no longer a reliable source of  news on this topic. Take the rest of the season off—go home and get some sleep. I’ll reconsider your work after the election. 

Stay a little longer and read more posts:

10 thoughts on “New York Times, You’re Full of Shit

  1. The New York Times needs to implode!

    As well as the Hill, The Washington Post, and all the other countless liberal bias B.S. fish wrap papers throughout this once great country!

    You know, before that fricken worthless Kenyan got in office.

    TRUMP IN A LANDSLIDE 2016!!

    • Well, I’m glad we sort of agree, Sam Adams, but you may have noticed we’re not exactly on the same page here since this blog leans left, but nevertheless, thanks for stopping by. I do appreciate it.

  2. This is why I don’t watch TV, listen to the radio or read the newspaper. You can’t depend on any of those sources giving you straight facts, correct facts and nothing but the facts. You get what they want you to have. Oh, I get news alright. I listen, explore, then pay attention to what my gut says.
    I’m hoping a lot of folks read this and see what their guts say. I’m betting most will agree with you.

    • Nancy, Thanks for your vote of confidence. I never thought I’d be calling out the New York Times for shitty reporting, that’s for sure.

      No news source is going to be completely neutral because, of course, humans are reporting the news, so I look for sources that I trust for their ability to intelligently and critically interpret events and information. Obviously, those are becoming less and less mainstream.

      I rarely watch the news on TV. It’s sensational and shallow due to the influence of and reliance on advertising.

  3. Thank you for saying what I feel, putting it all into words on paper so others can see it and say, “Yeah, what she said!!”

    • You’re welcome—thanks for your reply. 🙂

      They’re using the power of their intellect for evil instead of good. Of course, the Times isn’t the only supposedly intelligent publication doing this. I gave up on the Washington Post a while back, and The New Yorker is just ridiculous with not seeing the obvious right now, for example. It’s frustrating.

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge