Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

She's the editorial director, so I'm guessing it was her call.

Not the call I would've made, but a cursory glance at the story shows pretty solid reporting, regardless.

 

I don't know what editors you worked under, but every hard ass editor I ever had was one of my favorites.

 

When someone writes, "Trump defended white supremacists," it implies that Trump knowingly defended white supremacists. It's very misleading, and requires the writer to assume that there were no non-"white supremacists" (whatever that term even means any more) at the rally.

 

Also, said another way:

If the people he was "defending" only exist in his own mind (i.e. "hypothetical people"), then it's perfectly acceptable in the real world to write that he was "defending" the real, live people who WERE there in real life.

 

Those are the best kind.

 

It's not because it implies knowledge on his part not indicated in his comment. It's extremely misleading.

 

Give me a break. She has a boss.

Looks like Lauren Williams is now the editor-in-chief:

Masthead

There's no way she wrote this story, and put it up without running it by others.

 

I didn't say she did.

 

Slight correction: It requires the writer to assume that there were no non-"white supremacists" AMONG THE SUPPORTERS of the white supremacists who were at the rally. Both sides. Not one or another or neutral.

Our president conjured up a false equivalence to avoid denouncing his friends, the white supremacists.

 

Speaking of editors, I'm on deadline and shouldn't even be here, but let's assume there is one dude who went to the rally in a white shirt and kaki pants not because he heard about the rally on DailyStormer, just because he is really into General Lee and Jefferson. Does that one person offer Trump safe harbor to make his claim that there were very fine people there? One out of a few thousand?

Again, the entire rally was chanting a Nazi slogan. Trump may have been ill-informed about who was at the rally, but he defended the people there, and there seems to be no evidence that I've read or seen that these people were "not racists." In fact, racism seems to have explicitly brought them together. See Jason Kessler, the organizer.

Trump, despite a long legacy of making racist statements, may not have been endorsing racists. But he absolutely did defend them, and making the assumption that the New York Times or others are implying he's doing it knowingly is your own.

 

Ugh. We've been through this before.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you show up at a rally that you think was for some other cause, and see that it's being led by white supremacists, you should leave immediately.

That said, not everyone who showed up realized what the rally was. A lot of people showed up for a rally to preserve confederate monuments. Now, you can disagree with that opinion, but not everyone who holds it is a white supremacist, or neo-nazi.

Trump believes that some of the people who stuck around were good people, who were not supporters of Nazis or white supremacists. Now, maybe no "good people" stuck around, but this is what Trump was saying. He was not saying that white supremacists or Nazis, or their supporters, were good people.