New York Times under fire for publishing 'fantasy' Trump assasination.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ne...rvice-helping-russian-assassin-gun-down-trump

Off the shelf irresponsible. There is no excuse for publishing such a story of a sitting President.
Unbelievable. I just can't believe they would imagine this was a good idea,


“The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger,” Sharp wrote. “The Makarov misfired.”...
...“He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost. It did not come. He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first,” Sharp wrote. “’Here,’ the agent said politely. ‘Use mine…’”

 

This is the New America. And it is sicker than hell.

 

The left sure loves it's assassination porn.

 

Thought this had to be fake because of what has been going on.

Progressives have been taking over and over about “message” as they try to push back against the “jobs not mobs” meme.

We have see. Arguments lately about “who is fomenting violence” and plenty of those arguments have happened here at PF.

This is terrible optics for Democrats to hve. I find it hard to believe Progressive NYT pushes this story through as it is noting but bad for their party.

Can’t really try to take the high road of “non violent rhetoric” after something like this.

 

There is no cost to the left for this since they control the media and how this is presented. They can give candy treats to their base (Trump assassination story) and solemnly report on Trump causing these bombings, without a hint of irony.

 

They havr never had tha high road. That is obvious.

All they have ever had is control of the narrative. Even as that control crumbles, they try to push it even harder. They can't afford to lose their narratives.

 

Leftie here.

Sounds like the NYT went too far. They should be especially careful to not promote work—even fiction—where assasination of a sitting president is a major plot device.

 

Filthy rag is as filthy rag does. (c) Forest Gump

Wait, isn't calling for the assassination of the US President a crime?

 

You see how gullible you are? Once again, Fox is messing with your head. That entire article is a commentary to a BOOK. It is the New York Times BOOK REVIEW section. And Fox, of course, used it as a weapon and it's all incendiary and 100% FAKE. Geeze, get some critical thinking and some logic, will you? The New York Times did not write the book, they reviewed the book and they noted how books being written are reflective of the times we're living in, that's all! The NY Times does NOT publish books, this is the NY Times Book Review section.

Book Review|Five Novelists Imagine Trump’s Next Chapter
Oct. 23, 2018

Our focus here at the Book Review is on books and stories, but also on how the books being written and read reflect the world outside of books. And one of the biggest stories out there, of course, is the Mueller investigation and the relationship between Trump and Putin. It’s hard not to speculate about what might happen next. To that end, we thought: Who better than some of today’s most talented spy and crime novelists — Joseph Finder, Laura Lippman, Jason Matthews, Zoë Sharp and Scott Turow — to conjure possible outcomes?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/books/review/trumps-next-chapter.html

The New York Times is under fire for a fictional account of President Trump being gunned down by a Russian assassin with a Glock belonging to his own Secret Service in a short story dubbed “assassination fantasy” by critics.

The Times Book Review section noted that its puts a spotlight on “books and stories, but also on how the books being written and read reflect the world outside of books.”

Can't you people see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears how Fox is manipulating you and feeding into your own hatred?

 

I find it strange that you would blame Democrats for this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/books/review/trumps-next-chapter.html

You want to criticize NY Times' publishing choices, fine. It just has nothing to do with Democrats.

 

It’s fiction.

 

Totally understand your points. But the NYT has some responsibility for understanding the mood of the nation, and it seems incredibly short-sighted to promote this piece of fiction in these very troubled and divided times.

 

NOT a book. It is a short story; commissioned by The New York Times.

Reread the article.

 

They were not 'promoting' anything. If you read the statement from the Times Book Review section they make it very clear that their commentary was regarding how books that are currently being written are reflective of the emotions and intensities of people's fears, nothing more than that. And, there were FIVE different novelists that they chose to compare, Joseph Finder, Laura Lippman, Jason Matthews, Zoë Sharp and Scott Turow. Their narrative "how the books being written and read reflect the world outside of books." make it very clear what the intention of their book reviews were. But Fox decided it would be a good weapon to use because most people would not understand the context of that article by the NY Time Book Review section.

 

N0, you are being misled. The NY Times link says exactly what it is. They chose FIVE DIFFERENT authors and took EXCERPTS from the books of those five authors. Please read the link, that's where Fox gleaned their evil from and it's all BS. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/books/review/trumps-next-chapter.html

 

What are you talking about? We know it's about a book, BUT it's about how 5 authors imagine what Trump's next chapter will be and she imagines his assassination. No one is "manipulating us or feeding into our own hatred" as the Democrat party does to its dupes...what is your buzzword for the day?

 

IT'S FICTION for God's sake, FICTION

 

NOT a book.

It's a short story commissioned by the New York Times.

 

Just making the NYT is “promotion”. It exposes works to an incredibly wide audience. I’m not saying they endorse the work, just giving it a major platform.

And the context you’re providing is nice and all ... it just won’t be appreciated or understood by most Americans. All they’ll hear is that the NYT published a piece that glorifies assassinating the president. The Times has to be a little smarter than that. They shouldn’t go out of their way to enrage a large faction that is thirsting for the paper’s destruction.

 

Tell me something, who but literary critics and avid book readers actually bother to read the New York Times Book Review section? Only someone like Fox News that is always looking for a thread to pull or a kernel of fear to plant.

 

It's a terrible, terrible, pile of excrement insult to the Secret Service. And Glock is not an authorized sidearm for them. The author is inaccurate in that portrayal as well.

btw, that terrible racist Atticus Finch is back in this white privileged "racist" country. To Kill a Mockingbird just won the PBS America's Favorite Read contest.

 

And Makarovs are reliable and accurate.

 

And they did so.

Unforced error by the NYT.

Played right into the enemies hands.

 

Liberals think all black scary looking pistols are Glocks.

The Secret Service agents carry the black scary looking Sig Sauer P-226.

P229 | Sig Sauer


Alpha males carry the M-1911 A1 pistol "cocked and locked" chambered for the man stopper .45 ACP

 

What's the point of your gun porn?