Thread: OPINION: The New York Times in a tizzy over Melania Trump's fashion choices. Seriously?

The New York Times is in trouble, and they know it. The paper has lost all credibility, and even long-time readers comfortable with its editorial bias have been sickened by the all-out trashing of Donald Trump over the past several months.

When the publisher of the world’s most arrogant and all-knowing newspaper puts out a mea culpa promising to “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism” you can be pretty sure that something is awry. To pledge to “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor” suggests they have been doing otherwise, and that is a fact.

That said, nothing seems to have changed at the Times. The reporting still is admiring of all-things Obama and derisive of all things Trump, to a laughable degree.

A case in point: an article in the Sunday Styles section last weekend about how fashion “designers fret that their warm reception during the Obama years may be over.” The thesis is this: that Hillary Clinton would likely have been more of a fashion icon and admirer while in the White House than Melania Trump, former model. Seriously.

This piece is worth reviewing because it is so outlandish, and buttresses the case that the Times’ editorial position overshadows reporting in all sections.

It is authored by authoritative fashion writer Vanessa Friedman, who knows better but who has adopted the political persuasion of her bosses, and undermined her own credibility in the process.

Surely she knows that Melania could become one of our country’s great style icons and that Hillary’s penchant for single-hue pants suit was a default mechanism, not a fashion statement.

A recent piece by Michael Cieply, who formerly worked at the single-hue Times for 12 years as a writer and editor, gives some insight into why the paper is such a Johnny-one-note. He says the “New York Times has always — or at least for many decades — been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes.” Other papers, Cieply says, are “reporter-driven (and) bottom-up”, with editors asking reporters “What are you hearing? What have you got?” By contrast, the Times is strictly top-down. Even in the fashion section!

Ms. Friedman nearly waxes poetic about Hillary’s Ralph Lauren pants suits, and especially the dark grey (with purple lapels) number she wore the morning of her concession speech...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...seriously.html

The article from the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/fa...hion.html?_r=1

Hillary Clinton has less than ZERO fashion sense. She's a TERRIBLE dresser.

I so agree AJ.. I often wondered why she didn't have better help choosing what to wear. She didn't HAVE to look like a sack of potatoes!

Originally Posted by Femme*

I so agree AJ.. I often wondered why she didn't have better help choosing what to wear. She didn't HAVE to look like a sack of potatoes!

And then the way she looked at that speech she gave this week? I think she was just trying to garner sympathy... poor me. I could barely get out of bed and comb my hair to get here... boo hoo.

Yep, her *Woe is me* look at that speech only adds fuel to the "rioters" fire.

Originally Posted by A.J.

And then the way she looked at that speech she gave this week? I think she was just trying to garner sympathy... poor me. I could barely get out of bed and comb my hair to get here... boo hoo.

I think she tried to come fully down from the image that she crafted for becoming then being President. She has to do that in order to be free to live a different life. Which says something about how intensely she has been into the role that she set before herself.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9rsQNxVI-Y#t=24m58s

Originally Posted by Valiant Woman

I truly believe Hillary had a nervous breakdown the night of the election which lasted til morning and has bouts of severe depression even now. She truly believed she was going to win, and so did her backers. She's probably in a panic as well because she has absolutely nothing to offer or repay those that shelled out the $$mega-bucks$$ during her campaign.

I agree! I said the next day that she didn't come out the night of the election because her concession speech hadn't been written yet. I don't think she was at all prepared to lose and was in shock.

Originally Posted by Valiant Woman

She's probably in a panic as well because she has absolutely nothing to offer or repay those that shelled out the $$mega-bucks$$ during her campaign.

I was thinking about that the other day. Who will donate to the Clinton Foundation now?