This is rich. This little twerp, who got his exalted job because of his last name and for that reason only, begged Trump to lay off fighting back against the shamelessly biased media.
"Sulzberger, who succeeded his father as publisher on Jan. 1, said his main purpose for accepting the meeting was to “raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”
“I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous,” he said.
Sulzberger said he told Trump that while the phrase “fake news” is untrue and harmful, “I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people.’ I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”
Sulzberger, who attended the meeting with James Bennet, the Times’ editorial page editor, said he stressed that leaders outside the U.S. are already using Trump’s rhetoric to justify cracking down on journalists."
https://apnews.com/2bbf5451248c46e4...-asks-Trump-to-reconsider-anti-media-rhetoric
Almost every point Sulzberger made was factually incorrect. The divisiveness clearly has come from democrats' scorched earth policy, one that big media not only endorsed but has worked overtime to further.
Dangerous is it? The NYT and WashPost didn't seem too concerned about the danger to our troops and special ops people when they published inflammatory articles about prisons in Iraq, revealed terrorist tracking techniques, revealed secret CIA detention facilities and interrogation practices, etc etc. They published stories that blew the fact we had the ability to track terrorist finances through the SWIFT system. Did it make the country less secure? Did it cost people's lives? They didn't give a shit, not if they could screw over a hated administration or the CIA, which, don't forget, until Obama and Brennan turned it into the clandestine arm of the DNC, they despised.
They had no problems trying to ruin peoples' lives through publishing illegal leaks of supposed foreign intelligence surveillance, ie Clinton opposition research conducted by the FBI. They are happy to dox ordinary citizens who had the temerity to disagree with them or mock them. If it causes that person to lose their job or be a target for leftwing thugs, not their problem. But if someone boos a journalist or gives them the finger, folks, we have national crisis on our hands. And you know who's to blame.
The "fake news" label stings them because it erodes their arrogant claim to be the Last Word on everything. But the fact is, they have been dead wrong time after time, particularly on Trump stories. The pattern is always the same. They publish some sensational story trying to destroy Trump or one of his aides, based on leaks or anonymous sources. They push it relentlessly through social media, and it gets tens of thousands of retweets. There are denials, then it comes out that the story is either totally false, eg the claim that a disabled vet working at the VA had Nazi tats, or was taken out of context or is baseless, eg Trump Russia collusion.
Mistakes happen of course, but when they all happen in a way that reflects the media's obvious bias, people notice. Sometimes they issue corrections but they never get the prominence that the original fake story did and they get a fraction of the retweets. Damage done, they are happy to move on in search of another target of opportunity.
The media want to have it both ways. They want to wrap their business interests in the protection of the First Amendment and claim to be above the political mud wrestling, but they also expect to be the arbiters of acceptable policy and instruct the public whom they may vote for. Sorry, that doesn't fly, not when they're trying to overturn a democratic election and ruin relations with a nuclear armed superpower.
