"Like most anonymous quotes and tracts, this one is a PR stunt," writes Wemple. "Mr. Senior Administration Official gets to use the distributive power of the New York Times to recast an entire class of federal appointees. No longer are they enablers of a foolish and capricious president. They are now the country’s most precious and valued patriots. In an appearance on Wednesday afternoon, the president pronounced it all a 'gutless' exercise. No argument here."
"Perhaps the New York Times’s op-ed managers missed the approximately 10,000 quotes from anonymous administration officials raising questions about Trump’s capabilities, not to mention some on-the-record comments, as well," writes Wemple.
One of the only newsworthy moments in the piece, Wemple suggests, invites questions about the Times' journalistic standards (formatting adjusted):
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3552...mple-agrees-trump-nyt-anonymous-james-barrett
"Perhaps the New York Times’s op-ed managers missed the approximately 10,000 quotes from anonymous administration officials raising questions about Trump’s capabilities, not to mention some on-the-record comments, as well," writes Wemple.
One of the only newsworthy moments in the piece, Wemple suggests, invites questions about the Times' journalistic standards (formatting adjusted):
“Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.”
Two issues there: What, precisely, are whispers? Are they emails? Are they water-cooler discussions based on some opinion piece about the imperative of removing our president? And: Did the op-ed page’s editors work their sources to firm up that contention? We’ve asked the New York Times for clarification on that matter.
Two issues there: What, precisely, are whispers? Are they emails? Are they water-cooler discussions based on some opinion piece about the imperative of removing our president? And: Did the op-ed page’s editors work their sources to firm up that contention? We’ve asked the New York Times for clarification on that matter.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3552...mple-agrees-trump-nyt-anonymous-james-barrett