‘New York Times’ Sinks to New Lows





Since Donald Trump was elected president, the New York Times has made it their personal mission to do anything and everything possible to destroy his presidency. The Times, along with the Washington Post, have devoted the vast majority of their coverage to negative stories about Trump, as much as 90 percent according to some reports.

While their reporting has uncovered stories about Trump and his administration that have exposed some questionable practices, too often their partisan slant has led to articles that are misrepresentative of the truth, if not an outright lie. It has led the paper to become nothing more than the National Enquirer of politics where innuendo is king.

A Clear Bias from Day One

From the moment that Donald Trump was elected president, the New York Times has acted like their hair was on fire. Even Trump hater Joe Scarborough noticed this. The MSNBC host pointed out that the day after Trump was elected president, the paper did not focus on the historic, landmark election result but, instead, led with the headline, “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.” Scarborough called the headline “staggering” in relation to the focus of the story.

Many were outraged at Trump’s response following the riots in Charlottesville. The New York Times was no exception. They wrote several news stories and op-eds attacking the president for his words. The problem was that five of their stories completely misquoted his comments, forcing them to make retractions in all five stories.

The Times has had to retract several stories over the last two years. This includes the lie that “17 intelligence agencies” agreed that the Russians helped Trump get elected, only to report later this assertion was false.

The President has not been the only target of the Times, as they have made several gaffs about administration officials and about wife Melania. In 2015, they had to correct five stories related to the soon to be first lady. In September 2018, the Times ran a story about how U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley spent over $52,000 on curtains for her residence. The problem was that the allocation for these funds had occurred during Barack Obama’s presidency, and the reporter at the Times knew this. The story was purposefully misleading.

These are just a few of the many instances where the New York Times has had to correct a story or where they have been called out by other news agencies for false reporting.

Hitting a New Low

While some have wavered in their support for the President, one group that has been loyal has been the military. Trump has helped to restore funding to the military and has improved esprit de corps across the armed forces.

This support was attacked by the New York Times this week, as the paper ran a story about Trump’s deferment from the military during the Vietnam War. According to the paper, Trump’s father convinced a close associate to say that his son had bone spurs, thus negating his ability to serve in the military. The reporter, Steve Eder, explained that this was a “favor” performed by the doctor, and that the younger Trump did not have spurs.

The intent of the story is clear – “All you military people who support this president. Know that he is a draft dodger himself. He got a doctor to fake a disability to get out of service. You should not support him.”

With such a serious allegation there is no doubt that Eder would have a mountain of proof to support his story. He would have a statement from the doctor. He would have medical records, eyewitnesses, and military personnel on record to speak about the nefarious means Trump used to get out of duty 53 years ago.

Sadly, he had none of that. In fact, Eder literally had nothing.

According to Eder, the story began from a tip. A call to the Times from an anonymous caller explained that Trump’s father has convinced a doctor to create a false medical report that Donald Trump could use to get out of service. No doctor’s name was provided by the caller, but enough of a description was given to allow the reporter to begin his search.

Eder then went through records of doctors who had medical offices in Trump senior’s buildings and found Dr. Larry Braunstein. Braunstein had died in 2007, and so the reporter could not speak to him, but he did happen to find two daughters of the doctor. Both told Eder that their father had “implied” to them that he had created the false report as a favor to Fred Trump, Donald’s father.

With that kind of tip, the NYT reporter must have found all kinds of corroboration to support the “implications” made by the doctor. He clearly could not run a story like this without some kind of support. Sadly, that is exactly what the paper did – all 37 paragraphs. No support. No records. Just what two daughters say their father implied decades ago.

This story is garbage from the start. It is just another example of a gossip story published by the New York Times as truth without concern for truth.

It starts with the fact that 30 paragraphs into the story, Eder admits that the two daughters don’t like Trump. So, they have a personal axe to grind. In fact, they are probably the ones who called in the tip to try to get the story published. Secondly, seven paragraphs into the story Eder admits that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. No medical records. No paperwork. Nothing!

The daughters added that another podiatrist was involved, Dr. Manny Weinstein. He died in 1995, and there is no evidence to support this claim either. All they can say is that whenever their father talked about Trump’s exemption “he often mentioned Dr. Weinstein.” The daughters did not provide any context, no memory of what their father said Weinstein did. In fact, they did not even know what his role in the story was exactly. Just another false piece of information provided by two women who hate Trump yet published in the Times as fact.

What makes this story so ridiculous is that a doctor would tell his daughters about a patient’s care. Maybe…and this is a big maybe…a doctor would talk to their spouse, but to their daughters? That is ridiculous.

Doctors are bound by a very strict code of conduct to protect the records of patients and Dr. Braunstein would have been in a lot of trouble for disclosing such information. He could have lost his license.

The two daughters also added that this story was “family lore.” It was something they “would always discuss.” Yet, there is no corroboration from any other member of the family. If it was so widely discussed and was a huge part of the family’s story, how come there is no other family member or close friend who can provide support for the tale? It would seem that there would be dozens who could.

Plus, they say in the one part of the article that their father “implied” that he did this as a favor to Fred Trump, yet it was discussed often as part of “family lore?” So, for years, they discussed something without really discussing it?

The purpose of this story is clear. The New York Times wants servicemen and women to turn against the president and they will print anything to try to discredit him. Maybe there was a time when the NYT was a proud and respected newspaper. Now it is just an overpriced fish wrapper.