Paglia: ‘New York Times’ Juvenile Hit Piece on Trump Backfires

This just in: rich, powerful, successful men like beautiful women. And beautiful women like them. True at least since the dawn of Man, when the first cave monkey picked up a rock, beat a rival to death and passed along his genes to the next generation that same day. But progressive, reality-denying institutions like the New York Times just don’t seem to know anything about history and human behavior, as is lavishly illustrated by this major flopola of a hit piece on Donald Trump. The brilliant Camille Paglia takes the Gray Lady to task for its stupidity…

  • Norman_In_New_York

    In case it hasn’t figured it out already, the New York Times is about to discover how irrelevant to most Americans are its pronouncements on these manufactured political issues.

    • Ed

      Bad product. Poor sales.

  • Clinton

    It boggles the mind that the NYT can still pretend to observe any sort of
    journalistic integrity. As Ms. Paglia points out, the NYT is shocked, shocked
    that Trump has sought the company of beautiful women over the years–
    without once being accused of the gross impropriety and sexual assaults
    Bill Clinton has– and yet the NYT is curiously mum on Clinton’s history…

    It’s a bit like the NYT’s coverage of Andreas Serrano’s controversial photo
    Piss Christ, a photo of a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine. It
    was proclaimed ‘art’, and the NYT made sure to publish it in the paper.
    Likewise, when Chris Ofili’s painting The Virgin Mary caused a
    ruckus in ’96 because it was encrusted with elephant dung and cutouts
    from porno magazines, the NYT made sure to publish a photo of the ‘art’
    and sneer at the people who took exception. Fast forward a couple of decades,
    and when Pamela Geller hosted her “Draw Muhammad” event, where two
    men attempted to shoot the exhibit up, the NYT sanctimoniously informed
    the world that it would decline to reproduce any of the art from Ms. Geller’s
    event— I kid you not— because it would never reproduce artwork
    “deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities”.

    What a pack of sanctimonious, hypocritical cowards and hacks. I very
    much doubt anyone at the New York Times has an interest in either
    journalistic integrity or freedom of speech. That sad, declining rag is
    just the in-flight magazine for a very insulated, left-leaning population
    of Manhattanites. As Camille Paglia said elsewhere, over 15 years ago, “if
    anyone still thinks the New York Times is still this nation’s “newspaper of
    record”, they haven’t been paying attention for the last twenty years”.