Responding to a tweet from President Trump about his meeting with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, the liberal newspaper released a lengthy statement Sunday afternoon in which Sulzberger explained that he confronted Trump over his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric” that he warned will cause journalists to be physically harmed.
First, here’s what the President claimed took place:
Sulzberger began his statement by emphasizing that “[m]y main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric” and that “his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”
Ah, so he’s taken the Jim Acosta approach to delegitimizing press criticism that doesn’t come from within their friendly confines of CNN, liberal academia, and press groups.
Sulzberger went on to further prove that he’s of the same mindset as Acosta, David Folkenflik, Brian Karem, and April Ryan when it comes to tying Trump to threats against journalists, reporters being jailed worldwide, and offering a dog whistle to those suggesting Trump calling the press biased and “Fake News” will get someone killed:
I told him that although 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.
I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president’s rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.
Here we go again with this arrogant, self-centered mindset in the press that, when one thinks about the First Amendment, the chief (and often seemingly only) example is a free press. As Mark Levin pointed out on his July 23 show, it’s the people who uphold the Constitution and thus it concerns the people, not just a subset of the American population.
Sulzberger later concluded the statement by encouraging Trump to “not...soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair” but “reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.” Well, that’s quite the spin.
On the Monday morning network newscasts, however, only CBS This Morning covered it with an extended news brief by co-host Norah O’Donnell and fill-in co-host Anthony Mason.
With one of the on-screen headlines reading “Pressing the President,” O’Donnell explained that “President Trump is ramping up his attacks on the press after he met with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger this month” in his Sunday tweet.
Mason then summarized the Sulzberger letter, citing key lines such Sulzberger’s emphasis that Trump “is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists” and then the other Trump tweet responded to The Times’s statement.
To see the relevant transcript from July 30's CBS This Morning, click “expand.”
CBS This Morning
July 30, 2018
8:07 a.m. Eastern[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Pressing the President: NYT Publisher Asks President to End Attacks on Journalism]
NORAH O’DONNELL: President Trump is ramping up his attacks on the press after he met with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger this month. In a tweet yesterday, he called their meeting “good and interesting.” He said they discussed “Fake News” and how that led him to label the news media the “enemy of the people”
ANTHONY MASON: In response to the President's tweet, Sulzberger said his “main purpose for...meeting was to discuss the president's anti-press rhetoric.” Sulzberger said he “warned” the President his rhetoric “is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists.” President Trump appeared to respond by tweeting that the media's coverage “puts the lives of many, not just journalists at risk!” Very unpatriotic!”
To see the full statement from Sulzberger on the Trump meeting, click “expand.”
New York Times Statement
07/29/18Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in Response to President Trump’s Tweet About Their Meeting
Earlier this month, A.G. received a request from the White House to meet with President Trump. This was not unusual; there has been a long tradition of New York Times publishers holding such meetings with presidents and other public figures who have concerns about coverage.
On July 20th, A.G. went to the White House, accompanied by James Bennet, who oversees the editorial page of The Times. Mr. Trump’s aides requested that the meeting be off the record, which has also been the practice for such meetings in the past.
But with Mr. Trump’s tweet this morning, he has put the meeting on the record, so A.G. has decided to respond to the president’s characterization of their conversation, based on detailed notes A.G. and James took.
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times:
My 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.
I told him that although 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.
I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president’s rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country’s greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.
Throughout the conversation I emphasized that if President Trump, like previous presidents, was upset with coverage of his administration he was of course free to tell the world. I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair. Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.
