Now Carlos Slim, as you know, comes from Mexico. He's given many millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives.
I'm dealing with Mexico, I'm dealing with Argentina. We were dealing in this case with Mike Flynn. All this information gets put into The Washington Post and The New York Times, and I'm saying, what's going to happen when I'm dealing on the Middle East? We've got to stop it. That's why it's a criminal penalty.
If you look at the New York Times, it says X; if you look at the Washington Post, it says the same thing. And if you turn on any television newscast it's the same thing you already heard, that's research. And that's one of the ways it's done. Authority ends up being imputed simply because of volume. I mean, all of these different news organizations reporting the exact same thing.
The president-elect [Donald Trump] himself in the interview with "The New York Times" says there is no law that governs conflict of interest in - with the president.
[Mark] Lilla sees a deeper problem, and he wrote an article in The New York Times denouncing identity liberalism.He says liberals have appealed to African-Americans or women or the LGBT community but failed to craft a strong, broad national message. He's not the only person saying this. Long before the votes were cast, Bernie Sanders argued the Democrats lost the white working class by not speaking broadly to the country.
The New York Times had a headline on its website - Trump Turning To Ultra Wealthy To Steer Economic Policy. This doesn't sound very populist to me. Today's commerce secretary, the names being talked about for treasury secretary, I think there will be populist talk but maybe no populist action.
Everything I learned and didn't do in New York I would put into place here in the London West Hollywood. It's fascinating, when you look at the critics' reviews, and we had a great one in the New York Observer and all that, and then the New York Times came and it was a devastation; two stars out of four. They said that I played safe because it wasn't fireworks. Then they judged the persona over the substance that was on the plate.
The one that sticks out in my mind and has all along was the New York Times piece on Melania Trump.Calling her a mannequin and a trophy wife, which if anybody had ever said that about any - Michelle Obama was a lawyer. But Melania Trump has been a successful businesswoman. She speaks several languages. A mannequin and a trophy wife and it was just - fine, they were allowed to say that about her.
The New York Times reports that [Donald] Trump wants [Jared] Kushner in the White House, and he's exploring whether he can take a position. It's problematic, though, because even an unpaid job could fall under a law prohibiting nepotism.
I figured if I could put together being funny about stuff and actual events, maybe I could do something that wasn't being done much. Because the reporters that I met out there were funny, and they had hilarious stories that just didn't fit in the AP/UPI/New York Times foreign-correspondent style. They couldn't use the things they had. But I could.
I think the press, by and large, is what we call "liberal". But of course what we call "liberal" means well to the right. "Liberal" means the "guardians of the gates". So the New York Times is "liberal" by, what's called, the standards of political discourse, New York Times is liberal, CBS is liberal. I don't disagree. I think they're moderately critical at the fringes. They're not totally subordinate to power, but they are very strict in how far you can go. And in fact, their liberalism serves an extremely important function in supporting power.
In 1996 or 1997, out of nowhere, Fox News comes on and it's on channel 360 on Direct TV, and out of 300 million Americans, on every single night, anywhere from 3 to 5 million watch it, we're talking about at no more than 2 percent of the American public is watching Fox at any given moment. Yet, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the institutional left, CNN, MSNBC, the record companies, Hollywood, all seem to be committed towards aligning their minds and their money and their other resources to try to shut up Fox News.
Wherever you go, whether it be a college campus or the New York Times or ABC News or Venezuela or Cuba or the former Soviet Union, it's amazing how the speech codes and the trying to shut up dissent is a defining aspect of the left because they believe so firmly in their utopian ideals that anyone who would disagree with that utopia is an enemy of the state, and they treat them as such.
The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, they turned around and talked about the way Hillary Clinton and cohorts always went after these women [of Bill Clinton].
Five years ago, I wasn't getting questions [about blogs and the internet] from the TV/radio critic of the New York Times.
I get questions from Richard Sandomir at the New York Times or Michael Hiestand at USA Today about issues .., 'well, there's a blog site that says you root too hard for the Red Sox. Or people don't like you because you're rooting against their team ...'I don't want to say it's bad. There are certainly things you learn from the internet. You certainly learn from people's opinions. I think you're going to get some of the negative a lot more than the positive, but I think you can learn from it.
It doesn't matter what the FBI says. The New York Times is that big a bible for people on the left.
My local paper, The New York Times, Yahoo News, CBS, and The Washington Post, all agreed to stop using the word 'mistress.' The big one was the Associated Press. They made a style change, and it's the gold standard that sets the guide for news outlets around the world. That's a small step for the American language, a medium step for feminism, and a huge step for me personally.
I wanted to look right. I remember a review - a very positive one - in The New York Times that said I was so good in the role [Earl Mills] that I "even managed to overcome a terrible red wig." I wanted to write her and tell her about the agony I'd gone through with the perm, but I thought better of it.
It doesn't matter who the candidates are. It doesn't matter the campaign. You know that's gonna happen. The Washington Post is gonna do it, the New York Times is gonna do it, the three networks gonna do it, CNN's gonna do it, MSNBC gonna do it, all the newspapers are gonna do it. For the vast majority of them. There are some exceptions. That sameness ends up being its own authority. If everywhere you look in the media tells you the same thing, you don't have to research.
I think it was simply word of mouth that made it a New York Times bestseller for more than 60 weeks, over a year. People being moved and changed and transformed by the book [ One Thousand Gifts: A Dare to Live Fully Right Where You Are] and wanting to share that with hurting people all around them.
The New York Times, they lie. They lie like I've never seen anything.
I wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times about the amazing effect of shared wonder - how I have an audience filled with people who you'd think would hate each other, people from every religious category, all at the same show at the same time. And it's an amazing phenomenon to watch this shared sense of wonder, where these people who really don't like each other - for good and bad reasons, reasons that make sense and that don't make sense - are in the same room, experiencing this unification.
The New York Times and The Guardian came out and said, "Hey, clemency for Snowden." But for me, the key - and I've said this from the beginning: it's not about me. I don't care if I get clemency. I don't care what happens to me.
Too many people write books because they want to be a New York Times best-seller. They want the glory and the fame.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: