July 20, 2017 Last Updated 10:13 am

While Trump gives interview with NYT, Breitbart editor says site’s goal is ‘elimination of the entire mainstream media’

Morning Brief: UK newspapers took a rare break from Brexit news to feature a new controversy on their front pages, leading with the issue of pay equality at the BBC

The political press and pundit class are shaking their heads this morning wondering why the president would have agreed to an interview with The New York Times, such is the trouble it ends up creating for the president, his administration, and those who speak for him. Is it, like CNN’s Brian Stelter believes, that the president craves the paper’s approval.

“Trump wants to have it both ways,” Stelter said this morning “He wants to bash news outlets like the NYT, but he wants the paper’s attention and approval.”

Some are pointing out that the president may have been sending out a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he wants him to resign, or a message to Robert Mueller not to go into his family’s business dealings in his investigation.

But to me, it appears that the president was doing what he always does, simply responding to questions with an unfiltered response. Does he feel this way? Possibly, but it seems unlikely, reading the transcript that he would have said anything on these topics had be not been asked.

It is why, it seems, that the interviewers, Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, did not follow-up on many of the claims the president made. Any false claims can be fact checked later, the real goal was to get the president talking because who knows what will come out.

This morning the NYT published excerpts from the interview (and not as some have said, the entire interview).

The New York Times, Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman:

Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions

Mr. Trump said Mr. Mueller was running an office rife with conflicts of interest and warned investigators against delving into matters too far afield from Russia. Mr. Trump never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, nor would he outline circumstances under which he might do so. But he left open the possibility as he expressed deep grievance over an investigation that has taken a political toll in the six months since he took office.

Asked if Mr. Mueller’s investigation would cross a red line if it expanded to look at his family’s finances beyond any relationship to Russia, Mr. Trump said, “I would say yes.” He would not say what he would do about it. “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”



Meanwhile, Breitbart News’ Washington Political Editor Matthew Boyle, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington on Wednesday entitled Combating Fake News: Replacing Establishment Media.

“The goal eventually is the full destruction and elimination of the entire mainstream media. We envision a day when CNN is no longer in business,” Boyle said. “We envision a day when The New York Times closes its doors. I think that day is possible.”


Photo: Alex Clark, Breitbart News

Breitbart News, Alex Clark:

Breitbart’s Boyle: Our Goal Is the ‘Elimination of the Entire Mainstream Media’

Boyle further argued that the failure of the mainstream media extended beyond a mere liberal bias. In his words:

The media is an industry in crisis that refuses to admit that it’s an industry in crisis. It’s almost like an alcoholic refusing to admit that they have a problem. They continue to go out there and make the same mistakes over and over again. It’s actually pretty easy, I could sit here all day and make a full time living on fact checking CNN. It gets boring after a while, but they make mistakes over and over again. Many of them, the same mistakes, and they refuse to correct them. Journalistic integrity is dead. There is no such thing anymore. So, everything is about weaponization of information. Both sides are fighting on the battlefield of ideas and you know CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, the whole alphabet soup they’ve all thrown in together with the institutional left.



Is Rupert Murdoch changing his opinion about the president, upset that his administration has approved the Sinclair deal for Tribune Media?

I don’t buy into the idea. Instead, I would say that Murdoch is not objecting to some reporters and commentators going after the president when the opportunity seems right. After all, we are seeing media rivals benefiting from the ongoing Trump-Russia story, with Rachel Maddow, for instance, often winning in the ratings war.

The reality is that the Trump-Russia is THE story, and will be for a while. Fox News and Murdoch’s other media brands can continue to ignore it, and suffer as a result, or begin to pivot.

As for the Sinclair deal, it certainly would bother Murdoch, but any voiced objections would only come back at him when regulators looks at his own attempt to acquire the majority stake in Sky News.

The Hollywood Reporter, Jeremy Barr,

Why Is Murdoch-Owned Media Attacking Trump Now?

The relationship between the president and the 21st Century Fox executive chairman has alternated between tumultuous and friendly over the last few decades. But three unflattering stories that appeared in Murdoch-owned papers during the course of a week have raised new questions about whether the media mogul is distancing himself from an increasingly unpopular political figure — and why.

One theory: “There is the beginnings of a fall-out” between Trump and Murdoch, spurred by Sinclair Broadcast Group’s May 8 deal to snap up Tribune Media for $3.9 billion, a Washington, D.C.-based individual active in Republican circles and familiar with the president’s and key adviser’s thinking told The Hollywood Reporter…

…”He was surprised that Trump is letting it go through,” the individual said of Murdoch, who this person said is no longer speaking to Trump as frequently as he once was. “I hear he’s pretty upset with the president.”



This morning the UK tabs, and even broadsheets, were unanimous in what should be the lead story, and for once it wasn’t Brexit: it was pay equality.
The Guardian, Graham Ruddick:

BBC facing backlash from female stars after gender pay gap revealed

The BBC is facing a backlash from female stars over pay after revealing that only a third of its 96 top earners are women and the top seven are all men…

…Harriet Harman, the Labour MP, said there was “clearly discrimination” at the BBC and that the corporation needed to change. “It is very important that the lid has been lifted on this pay discrimination in the BBC,” Harman, the longest-serving female MP, told BBC News. “Although everybody will think it is very unfair and outrageous, this is a moment when it can be sorted out.

“The BBC needs to set an example. This is public money and people don’t want their money to be spent unfairly. Public money shouldn’t be spent in a way which is discriminatory. When you look at the structure and the pay, it is clearly discrimination. Now that it is out in the open, it will have to change.”

Theresa May, the prime minister, accused the BBC of paying women less than men for doing the same job. “I think what has happened today is we have seen the way the BBC is paying women less for doing the same job as the men. I want to see women paid equally with men,” she said in an interview with LBC.

Comments are closed.