How bad a mayor, though? Portland bad, New York bad or St Louis bad?
2 Likes
Well, Reed presided over an unprecedented shift in the city, where working class people are being pushed out to make way for higher end housing. It’s trending towards looking like San Fran, regarding cost of living (though not nearly that stratified yet). He didn’t push at all for affordable housing for example, which is the biggest issue right now… that and transportation (which he only has so much say over, since that’s a state wide issue that encompasses areas that he has not say over (the metro area more broadly). There was also a bribery scandal that didn’t directly implicate him, but some of his staff went down for it (to his credit, he opened up the records for the media to go through when it came to light).
I don’t know where that would fit in, though. Not St. Louis bad at least.
2 Likes
World trend.
Once upon a time people wanted to live in the suburbs, or on country estates. Now, with the emphasis on service economies, cities are the new upmarket. Again.
5 Likes
2 Likes
Y’know, I’m really starting to wonder what Trump has on the owners of the New York Times. They’ve been pumping out these tone-deaf Nazi-flattering pieces for a while now.
3 Likes
Quite a while.
The NYT aren’t just incompetent; their ownership and editorial is actively pro-Trumpist. They’re the main liberal-targeting fascist propaganda channel.
3 Likes
The NYT is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He doesn’t need to “have” anything on them; they’re the arseholes responsible for him in the first place.
They’re just arseholes and don’t need any encouragement to fawn over the establishment.
2 Likes
The NYT is one of the best demonstrations of my standard propaganda rant, BTW.
Blatant falsehoods are not required. It’s all in the framing and emphasis.
2 Likes
Murdoch owns the Post and the Wall Street Journal. He doesn’t own the Times.
5 Likes
Ah, right you are. I always conflate the NYT and the Times as essentially the same entity…
2 Likes
The “Times of London”? I don’t think there’s any connection.
1 Like
No, there’s no connection, I just mix the two up in my head sometimes.
Also, it’s just The Times; only US media calls it The Times of London.
2 Likes
I suppose some of that article could be seen as flattering. But at the same time, there’s a lot of it that really paints a pretty insane picture…
Occasionally, the president solicits affirmation before hitting the “tweet” button. In June, according to a longtime adviser, he excitedly called friends to say he had the perfect tweet to neutralize the Russia investigation. He would call it a “witch hunt.” They were unimpressed.
“I do not watch much television,” he insisted. “I know they like to say — people that don’t know me — they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources — you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot.”
Later, he groused about being forced to watch CNN in the Philippines because nothing else was available.
If someone on [Fox & Friends] says something memorable and Mr. Trump does not immediately tweet about it, the president’s staff knows he may be saving Fox News for later viewing on his recorder and instead watching MSNBC or CNN live — meaning he is likely to be in a foul mood to start the day.
Other aides bemoan his tenuous grasp of facts, jack-rabbit attention span and propensity for conspiracy theories.
Who actually owns the NYT is a bit obscure.
They’re owned by:
…which is publicly traded.
This appears to be the key owner, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
…and that wiki link doesn’t work properly for some reason. Anyway:
1 Like
((( cosmopolitan elites ))) ?
2 Likes
No, see above; I was mid edit.
Sulzberger was raised Episcopalian, not that it matters.
1 Like
Something something Queen Elizabeth then.
1 Like
Secret Jacobites? 
2 Likes
1 Like