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

Wow are you smart! Bet you stopped learning reading comprehension at Dr Zeuss.

 

"That entire article is a commentary to a BOOK. It is the New York Times BOOK REVIEW section."

Should the NTY include a book in it's review that is the focus of the assassination of a sitting president? In light of the hatred on both sides of the political isle I find this to be very disturbing. Extremely irresponsible.

 

Your belittling others posters opinions and intelligence but your opinions reading comprehension is so lacking that it cant define the word commisioned? Ever hear of google? Its in the OP. The NYT admits to paying for the book to be written. So stop saying things that arent true, your not convincing anyone but yourself. What a joke. A tired joke

com·mis·sion

/kəˈmiSHən/

verb

past tense: commissioned; past participle: commissioned

1. give an order for or authorize the production of (something such as a building, piece of equipment, or work of art).

"the portrait was commissioned by his widow in 1792"

 

It is a very short story folks that in no way advocates for assassinating the President. This kind of Fox stupidity isn't going to motivate the great unwashed to vote Republican any more than they already do.

 

There were no books. They asked the authors to "to conjure possible outcomes" to "imagine Trumps next chapter". And the very next day they criticized Trump for creating the atmosphere that lead to all the delivered explosives.

 

A short story the NYT book review editors commisioned for a possible outcome to predict Trumps next chapter in his presidency that involves his own secret service going rogue and shooting him? Then they reviewed and published it.

Your opinion is as bad as this authors and if for one moment it thinks that any moderate or independent approves of the lefts current barbarism?

November is gonna be yet another reality check im sure the left will ignore just like they try to ignore the last Presidential results. Then we can listen to more crying here from the left

 

i agree with you that the NYT acted irresponsibly, however, the paper ins't endorsing the viewpoints of fictional works (or non-fictional for that matter) found in their Book Review section. I do believe they are promoting the work—giving it a highly sought after platform. But that is different from actually endorsing the points expressed in the work.

 

Whoever commissioned and/or edited this story said "Yeah, this story about assassinating the President with the help of the Secret Service fits what we were looking for and is OK to print".

 

Puh! Your insults are meaningless, they are completely ineffective. But that's how you roll, "hit them harder" as your mentor Trump would tell you. Your comment is insignificant.

 

Leftists just cant come to grips that the NYT did more than just review this story they commisioned it, read it and published it...its not just providing a platform via an unbiased random book review. It was intentional.

 

Why do you continue to avoid the fact this story was commissioned by, approved by, and paid for by the NYT?

 

I didnt insult anyone. I am asking straight forward easy to understand questions. I didnt tell you to repeatedly state that the NYT didnt pay for this assanination fantasy ( which they did )...you decided to do that all on your own. When your opinion was debunked by other posters for blatant far left deflecting...you belittled their intelligence. Its all in the thread...thinking you needed help I copied and pasted the definition of " commisioned " , so perhaps you might reconsider retracting some of your untrue statements and I get this above? As far as im concerned thats a concession

 

"Back in August I received an email, out of the blue, from an editor at The New York Times, asking me if I would like to write a short story for the Book Review."

https://www.zoesharp.com/short-story-in-the-new-york-times/

 

Yep she was hand picked, a known author, a far left ultra feminist. Her twitter is just full of man hater crap. Someone the NYT could trust to spin the usual violent leftist narrative they bleat every day

 

I'm a leftist ... and I've said virtually the same thing. So you should consider qualifying your statement and try to paint with a more precise brush.

 

Rush limbaugh never engaged in fantasizing about the murder of democrats

Liberals are truely sick puppies

 

Heh, you're setting me up for the bomb.

 

So it's a win/win for everyone.

However...you do know that FARC didn't win don't you?

 

My problem is that your rather expansive definition for the word 'fact' doesn't really apply to anything that is an actual fact.

 

My statement is perfectly qualified and your opinion is included. See my original post. Your opinions in this thread are milder than the blatantly untrue lefties opinion I have been destroying but your opinions if anyone cares to read from the first page are typical of milder Democrats these days. Basically ambiguous deflection that tries to paint the NYT as making some typed of " unforced error " and this and that. At no point did you virtually say the same thing. This wasnt an unforced error...This was intentional. The NYT sought out and commisioned this author who wrote this assasination fantasy...The NYT reviewed it then went ahead and published it. Its repugnant. Your opinion just danced around the above and downplayed it.

So. Yep. Democrats sold their soul to the far left devil and sit around making ambiguous excuses for the far left all day. Enjoy trying fruitessly to clean up your ideologies crap that they spew here all day.

Cheers.

 

Actually no there are five stories all different and the topic given by the times wasn't the assassination of Trump. And since you couldn't even read the quote from the OP correctly the secret service agent gave his gun to the assassin the agent didn't do any shooting in the story. In fact the President wasn't even assasinated in the actual story. What happened after the agent gave his gun to the assassin is left to the imagination of the reader. Since most of you appear to be too lazy to actually do the research here is what the lead in to the stories says:

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

Go and read the rest of the stories. No assasination in the others.

 

I nominate this for post of the week. Very nice!

 

It's odd that all kinds of infamous lefties and Democrats can say the vilest things about Trump, can voice and depict Trump's murder and it's no problem. Just let Trump say: Fake News! and it gets treated like the crime of the century.

Quit whining!

 

Great stuff.

The NYT should get a Pulitzer.

 

Hope they lose their seat at Trump press meetings.