BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith has an inside baseball report about a January 5 meeting between Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and the editorial board of The New York Times. According to Smith, many Times employees believe Trump conveyed to the paper—during a portion of the meeting deemed off-the-record —that his extreme policy positions on immigration are more flexible than he’s publicly admitted. Still, the Times refuses to release a transcript of the meeting, or even discuss Trump’s off-the-record comments:
“Think of it as The Establishment 2.0,” says the New York Times, of the “Working Team of the Itasca Project,” a group of “14 men and women who oversee some of the biggest companies, philanthropies and other institutions in Minneapolis, St. Paul and the surrounding area,” and who meet weekly “to quietly shape the region’s economic agenda.” Or think of it another way, if you want. Like... as a cabal?
Rafael Cruz, father of Republican presidential candidate Ted, is the subject of a New York Times investigation which alleges that maybe he wasn’t quite the Molotov cocktail-tossing Cuban revolutionary he’s made himself out to be. Woe is the man whose dad’s tall tales become a matter of public concern.
You might be surprised to learn that the New York State assemblyman who helped to craft a bill designed to protect nail salon workers, which Governor Cuomo signed into law earlier this year, has now decided that this law (especially the provisions pertaining to wage fraud) is bad. Then again, you might not be so surprised when you learn that, according to the New York Times’ Sarah Maslin Nir—whose investigative reporting on the nail salon industry in New York prompted Cuomo to take those “emergency measures”—salon owners have been sending tens of thousands of dollars in political donations the assemblyman’s way.
When hackers dumped an unfathomably large trove of internal materials from Sony Pictures on the internet last December, it created a feeding frenzy among reporters—unless you worked at the New York Times, which took a moral stance against touching stolen goods. Today, the Times has a big story explicitly based on material from that leak. So what changed?