I think the Epstein matter is so much worse than Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Watergate was a bungled criminal act, no one was physically harmed. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was unsavory as it was adulterous but between consenting adults. The Epstein matter is about rape, sex trafficking and underage females. This can not be treated as just another indiscretion.
This frankly is the problem with corporate media outlets. While they may slip in honest reporting of trump and the regime he oversees, in general they under report what is happening. Minimal and misleading reporting about the No Kings Day protests. We need independent media to provide factual reporting when corporate media drops the ball.
It may be "so much worse," but let's not miss what these scandals (and many, many more) have in common: male entitlement, and male abuse of power. Women have been calling attention to this for decades -- centuries, even. Maybe now that more men have caught on, more men will pay attention?
Our sexist media is far more concerned about crimes committed by minorities than they are about the frequent violent crimes women suffer at the hands of their male partners. You would think it would be a major media focus that a leading cause of maternal mortality is violence by the woman’s partner but I have never seen any focus on this shocking fact.
“Homicide leading cause of death for pregnant women in U.S.”
Perhaps. The Epstein issue though can’t be treated as more of the same. It has to stand out from the others. This is the most reprehensible thing to date, in my opinion.
I have cancelled both the WaPo and the NYT because of their craven sanewashing of Trump and endless bothsiderism, not to mention Bezos and Ross Douthat. But I happily subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, not billionaire owned, for Will Bunch and the other op-ed writers. The paper offers real coverage of the outrages of the Trump regime albeit from a Philly perspective. Oh, and also because of the Eagles and the Phillies.
And there was this infuriating headline in the Times on Saturday:
Blending Family and Governance, Trump Organization Talks Real Estate Deal With Saudis
Jeff Jarvis rightfully accused the Times of making this corruption seem "like a harmless avocation".
Of course, this was quite the opposite of how the Times covered the Clinton Foundation in 2015 and beyond. And made 'arrangements' with right-wing propagandist Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, so they could pimp his hit-piece allegations in their paper in the run-up to the election. None of which amounted to a kernel of this corruption.
I don't think that the Times is blind to the asymmetry and double standard of their coverage, I think it's foundational to them. As the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug.
Interesting to note that they changed that headline to "Trump Organization Is Said to Be in Talks on a Saudi Government Real Estate Deal", but the "blending" remains in the text.
I indeed discovered American Crisis thanks to the Paul Krugman interview, and I am delighted to read my first Substack here. I started reading the NYT again around the time Biden did his debate with Trump, and I was utterly SHOCKED to see how terribly low the quality of the domestic journalism reporting on the elections was. Only horse race articles, frequent FALSE headlines which merely summed up results of polls rather than reporting objectively proven facts (as the body of the article made clear, but who reads those these days... each time, the comment section was full of angry replies to the headline, taking it not as a subjective opinion but as a fact), and most shockingly of all: no editorial choice based on moral values or, for that matter, a pro-democracy stance.
The Editorial Board's op-eds often still did (but in a very subdued way). The main problem is clearly the newsroom.
I was sad to see Paul Krugman go, and yet, once I found him on Substack, I couldn't but agree with his decision, knowing how the NTY (the NYT!!) constantly censored him when he was merely stating the ugly truth.
So yes, I'm looking forward to many more articles about this major disaster in the US: the disappearing of truly great legacy media (although I too keep my subscription to the NYT, because indeed, aside from the elections and everything related to it, they often do still continue highly valuable investigative journalism that only big organizations like the NYT can do).
And with that, over to this specific Substack's content.
I didn't know Will Bunch, and I hadn't even thought about how the NYT is covering the Epstein files, but OMG, yes, THIS is the kind of journalism we urgently need!
I tried to read his entire op-ed, but unfortunately, it's behind a paywall. I hope he has a Substack...
Will has an email newsletter, might not be Substack.(You can subscribe via article below). But to see his entire Inquirer articles you do have to have a subscription.(which is well worth it, even if you don't have a Philly connection!) Try this (gift)link, it should work:
I’m glad others have pointed out that pieces like these in the Times are the result of a conscious decision-making process by multiple people, who had to say out loud “Yes, a piece on the Lost New York of Jeffrey Epstein sounds like a great idea.”
It’s the equivalent of “Yeah but those Southern plantations really were pretty.”
As for Olivia Nuzzi, I think I can say it best in meme format.
Everyone:
Absolutely everyone:
No seriously literally every life form in the universe:
The NYT: LET’S CHECK IN ON HOW OLIVIA NUZZI IS DOING
PS Sorry I forgot to answer the actual question that was asked: There’s no telling how this will shake out. What matters is whether the GOP continues to support Trump, and by any principle of being an actual political party, they would impeach and remove him. But they’ve decided not to follow the principles of being an actual political party.
So much of our DC infrastructure was built by labor that we should be ashamed did that hard work and the NYT's perpetuation of exploitation as somehow "normal enough" follows the traditions of patriarchy and racism so baked in by now we can just worry about Olivia or call Epstein's a "lost New York," WTAF.
Regarding whether the Epstein scandal will hurt the current president in a meaningful way, it seems clear that 25 to 30% of voting adults will never abandon him, based on that bedrock of support following the J6 insurrection. However, that suggests to me about 10% of his base are willing to turn away, something which gives me heart for the fate of our democracy.
The demolition of the East Wing, skyrocketing ACA premiums, the continuing high cost of living, and daily revelations of corruption chip away at that 10%. Perhaps, the Epstein scandal will be the final nudge. To me, the most important thing is to drive that support as low as we can to the lower bound of his bedrock. At 25%, it seems much harder for him to enforce orders, for example, to send the military into the streets, to seize ballot boxes, or in the most extreme, shoot peacefully protesting American citizens. All of these nightmares seem much more plausible to me when the current regime has an approval rating in the mid to upper 40s. I could be wrong though.
Some day everyone will have always been against this. Until then, we have to stand up for democracy and decency every day, even when it seems bleak. Thank you for doing more than your fair share, Ms. Sullivan!
I agree its all in the numbers. But with the sun shining on Epstein its harder for him to hide his depravities. Voters were definately able to lie to themselves about Trump in the past but he has also shown his caracter in in pictures of the white house destruction and the Gatsby ball. Things add up.
"Things add up" - Love that, and yes, they do! Everyone - or nearly everyone- has a gag reflux point. At which point they may take off the red hat and put it on the mantelpiece or bookshelf as a fading memory, and decide that it's just not worth showing up for the [hate-filled] dream that has gradually lost its formerly impervious- feeling luster of righteousness . . .
Here's the question for Trump supporters: Is racism and "owning the libs" more important to you than the safety and integrity of your daughters, wives, and mothers?
Absolutely spot on. I specifically appreciate the reference to the glowing Nuzzi profile. I was the subject of a vituperative error-strewn hit piece by her when she worked for The Daily Beast after my story (prosecutor turned whistleblower) was comprehensively covered in the NYT by the inestimable Michael Powell. I secured correspondence between her and then Gov Chris Christie’s press secretary Micheal Drewniak. Turns out she despised another reporter, Dave Sirota, who was also aggressively covering my story (she explicitly characterized Sirota as an “asshole” during the conversation). With Nuzzi the ugly is on the inside and it runs bone deep.
I just finished reading the Nuzzi profile that maybe substitutes for a book review? ( not really) with glam photos, some animated to catch attention and the writer's responses in the comments. There are some commenters whose eyes are never going to get wool pulled over them (though we get caught) as to the value of what we have just spent time reading. In the end, I refuse to say time wasted. You always learn something... usually about people. In that sense it was useful. Not sure I would have normally read it of if was not mentioned here.. not in this anxious period where I feel the need to keep serious. It was pure deflection.
As a former journalist, I was disgusted by the Nuzzi profile. In the reader comments, I tried to ask how serious journalists in the NYT newsroom feel about the publication giving Nuzzi this glamour-shot treatment. I noted that no other reporter who engaged in similar conduct would be legitimized or rehabilitated in this way, and that it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Nuzzi's looks were a factor in the coverage. I ended by imploring the Times to “do better.” The NYT did not publish my comment.
I truly think that Olivia Nuzzi needs help (of the mental health kind) not a hagiographic article about her "struggles". I think it can be argued that for quite some time, the NYT has been a clickbait machine, with some ancillary good reporting about the world.
Will Bunch (Philly Inquirer subscriber here) is better than most and Ken White is as succinct, honest, and fearless as they come.
If journalism was led by the Bunch's and the White's of the business, there would be fewer Epsteins in this world.
Alas, we do not have brave people running media, we have psycophants willing to play a game to line pockets.
This above all, and only when the victims have been totally validated, is what I pray will be revealed. In particular, I am dying to know about the billions transferred to Russian banks. I hope I can manage the stench . . .
I heartily agree! While everyone’s parsing what is or is not a child/woman, and whether sex with a 15yo is rape or not, the money laundering part gets swept under the table. I think that’s what the NYT is nostalgic for—massive amounts of $$$ being shuffled around without scrutiny….
This is a DJT statement from this past weekend-“If Jeffrey Epstein had any dirt on Donald Trump, he would have had great leverage in the criminal case against him at the time he died."
Thank you for this open mike Margaret Sullivan. As the onion of the obvious continues to unfold the question, how many people had Epstein ensnared in his Pedophile Club, is coming out soon. A lot! A lot, lot, it appears. His silence was very likely guaranteed by someone powerful enough to break bones in an already broken man. Four pathologists who examined his body told Epstein's brother the "suicide" appeared to be anything but. Trump will continue to be eaten alive by his own diseased brain. With more blood clots ahead, his next stroke (not one the golf course) liikely will leave him speechless. Soon enough to be gone, but never forgotten are the history and the herstories relating to this American monster.
Continue to agree with you about the NYT. Also on AI…am using it to research my new book and finding all kinds of errors. This should be more front and center in the AI discussion.
My husband -- fully capable of handling complex math questions -- decided to double check how much water was needed when using 1.5 cups of rice rather than 1 cup. AI came back with use seven cups of rice for each cup of water. Don't let AI do your math problems!
When I saw the headline for the Times' nostalgia piece, I simply moved on. As a New Yorker, I had no intention of revisiting that tacky era when all recent progress toward a humane society was swept away seemingly overnight. I recall being at a cocktail party where I met a very British-sounding Australian who identified himself as the Editorial Page editor for the NY Post which had recently been acquired by Murdoch. I said, "James Wechsler's name is still on the mast-head for that position." He smiled with unabashed cynicism, saying "Oh, we just keep Jimmy around to remove any Anglicisms that might crop up in my prose." Wechsler of course had been a true liberal all his life, and this guy (Rothwell, I think) provided my first glimpse of the amoral, materialistic, reactionary age that would produce Trump.
I'm not usually a cynic, but having already mentioned NY Times Pitchbot in a comment, I don't think I can find better words for what I feel about the impact on Trump's base than these words filed under that moniker:
Nothing will happen to any of the prominent people who continued to fraternize with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted of sex trafficking. Here’s why cancel culture has gone too far.
Analysis | The Epstein revelations have roiled Trump’s base. Here’s how many kids worldwide his administration will have to starve to win the base back.
I think the Epstein matter is so much worse than Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Watergate was a bungled criminal act, no one was physically harmed. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was unsavory as it was adulterous but between consenting adults. The Epstein matter is about rape, sex trafficking and underage females. This can not be treated as just another indiscretion.
This frankly is the problem with corporate media outlets. While they may slip in honest reporting of trump and the regime he oversees, in general they under report what is happening. Minimal and misleading reporting about the No Kings Day protests. We need independent media to provide factual reporting when corporate media drops the ball.
It may be "so much worse," but let's not miss what these scandals (and many, many more) have in common: male entitlement, and male abuse of power. Women have been calling attention to this for decades -- centuries, even. Maybe now that more men have caught on, more men will pay attention?
Our sexist media is far more concerned about crimes committed by minorities than they are about the frequent violent crimes women suffer at the hands of their male partners. You would think it would be a major media focus that a leading cause of maternal mortality is violence by the woman’s partner but I have never seen any focus on this shocking fact.
“Homicide leading cause of death for pregnant women in U.S.”
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Hear hear!!
From your mouth to God’s ear.
Perhaps. The Epstein issue though can’t be treated as more of the same. It has to stand out from the others. This is the most reprehensible thing to date, in my opinion.
I have cancelled both the WaPo and the NYT because of their craven sanewashing of Trump and endless bothsiderism, not to mention Bezos and Ross Douthat. But I happily subscribe to the Philadelphia Inquirer, not billionaire owned, for Will Bunch and the other op-ed writers. The paper offers real coverage of the outrages of the Trump regime albeit from a Philly perspective. Oh, and also because of the Eagles and the Phillies.
I also love my local Iquirer
I was a paperboy for the Inquirer in the 60s. I live 250 miles away, but still love the paper.
And there was this infuriating headline in the Times on Saturday:
Blending Family and Governance, Trump Organization Talks Real Estate Deal With Saudis
Jeff Jarvis rightfully accused the Times of making this corruption seem "like a harmless avocation".
Of course, this was quite the opposite of how the Times covered the Clinton Foundation in 2015 and beyond. And made 'arrangements' with right-wing propagandist Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, so they could pimp his hit-piece allegations in their paper in the run-up to the election. None of which amounted to a kernel of this corruption.
I don't think that the Times is blind to the asymmetry and double standard of their coverage, I think it's foundational to them. As the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug.
Interesting to note that they changed that headline to "Trump Organization Is Said to Be in Talks on a Saudi Government Real Estate Deal", but the "blending" remains in the text.
I think it may be a feature of money talking in NYC When big money is involved, the NYT is always kind of drooling about it.
I indeed discovered American Crisis thanks to the Paul Krugman interview, and I am delighted to read my first Substack here. I started reading the NYT again around the time Biden did his debate with Trump, and I was utterly SHOCKED to see how terribly low the quality of the domestic journalism reporting on the elections was. Only horse race articles, frequent FALSE headlines which merely summed up results of polls rather than reporting objectively proven facts (as the body of the article made clear, but who reads those these days... each time, the comment section was full of angry replies to the headline, taking it not as a subjective opinion but as a fact), and most shockingly of all: no editorial choice based on moral values or, for that matter, a pro-democracy stance.
The Editorial Board's op-eds often still did (but in a very subdued way). The main problem is clearly the newsroom.
I was sad to see Paul Krugman go, and yet, once I found him on Substack, I couldn't but agree with his decision, knowing how the NTY (the NYT!!) constantly censored him when he was merely stating the ugly truth.
So yes, I'm looking forward to many more articles about this major disaster in the US: the disappearing of truly great legacy media (although I too keep my subscription to the NYT, because indeed, aside from the elections and everything related to it, they often do still continue highly valuable investigative journalism that only big organizations like the NYT can do).
And with that, over to this specific Substack's content.
I didn't know Will Bunch, and I hadn't even thought about how the NYT is covering the Epstein files, but OMG, yes, THIS is the kind of journalism we urgently need!
I tried to read his entire op-ed, but unfortunately, it's behind a paywall. I hope he has a Substack...
Welcome!
Thank you so much, and thanks for your absolutely crucial work in times like these!
Will has an email newsletter, might not be Substack.(You can subscribe via article below). But to see his entire Inquirer articles you do have to have a subscription.(which is well worth it, even if you don't have a Philly connection!) Try this (gift)link, it should work:
https://share.inquirer.com/kNmdJz
I’m glad others have pointed out that pieces like these in the Times are the result of a conscious decision-making process by multiple people, who had to say out loud “Yes, a piece on the Lost New York of Jeffrey Epstein sounds like a great idea.”
It’s the equivalent of “Yeah but those Southern plantations really were pretty.”
As for Olivia Nuzzi, I think I can say it best in meme format.
Everyone:
Absolutely everyone:
No seriously literally every life form in the universe:
The NYT: LET’S CHECK IN ON HOW OLIVIA NUZZI IS DOING
PS Sorry I forgot to answer the actual question that was asked: There’s no telling how this will shake out. What matters is whether the GOP continues to support Trump, and by any principle of being an actual political party, they would impeach and remove him. But they’ve decided not to follow the principles of being an actual political party.
You are channeling NY Times Pitchbot ;-)
https://bsky.app/profile/nytpitchbot.bsky.social
So much of our DC infrastructure was built by labor that we should be ashamed did that hard work and the NYT's perpetuation of exploitation as somehow "normal enough" follows the traditions of patriarchy and racism so baked in by now we can just worry about Olivia or call Epstein's a "lost New York," WTAF.
Regarding whether the Epstein scandal will hurt the current president in a meaningful way, it seems clear that 25 to 30% of voting adults will never abandon him, based on that bedrock of support following the J6 insurrection. However, that suggests to me about 10% of his base are willing to turn away, something which gives me heart for the fate of our democracy.
The demolition of the East Wing, skyrocketing ACA premiums, the continuing high cost of living, and daily revelations of corruption chip away at that 10%. Perhaps, the Epstein scandal will be the final nudge. To me, the most important thing is to drive that support as low as we can to the lower bound of his bedrock. At 25%, it seems much harder for him to enforce orders, for example, to send the military into the streets, to seize ballot boxes, or in the most extreme, shoot peacefully protesting American citizens. All of these nightmares seem much more plausible to me when the current regime has an approval rating in the mid to upper 40s. I could be wrong though.
Some day everyone will have always been against this. Until then, we have to stand up for democracy and decency every day, even when it seems bleak. Thank you for doing more than your fair share, Ms. Sullivan!
I agree its all in the numbers. But with the sun shining on Epstein its harder for him to hide his depravities. Voters were definately able to lie to themselves about Trump in the past but he has also shown his caracter in in pictures of the white house destruction and the Gatsby ball. Things add up.
"Things add up" - Love that, and yes, they do! Everyone - or nearly everyone- has a gag reflux point. At which point they may take off the red hat and put it on the mantelpiece or bookshelf as a fading memory, and decide that it's just not worth showing up for the [hate-filled] dream that has gradually lost its formerly impervious- feeling luster of righteousness . . .
Here's the question for Trump supporters: Is racism and "owning the libs" more important to you than the safety and integrity of your daughters, wives, and mothers?
Absolutely spot on. I specifically appreciate the reference to the glowing Nuzzi profile. I was the subject of a vituperative error-strewn hit piece by her when she worked for The Daily Beast after my story (prosecutor turned whistleblower) was comprehensively covered in the NYT by the inestimable Michael Powell. I secured correspondence between her and then Gov Chris Christie’s press secretary Micheal Drewniak. Turns out she despised another reporter, Dave Sirota, who was also aggressively covering my story (she explicitly characterized Sirota as an “asshole” during the conversation). With Nuzzi the ugly is on the inside and it runs bone deep.
I just finished reading the Nuzzi profile that maybe substitutes for a book review? ( not really) with glam photos, some animated to catch attention and the writer's responses in the comments. There are some commenters whose eyes are never going to get wool pulled over them (though we get caught) as to the value of what we have just spent time reading. In the end, I refuse to say time wasted. You always learn something... usually about people. In that sense it was useful. Not sure I would have normally read it of if was not mentioned here.. not in this anxious period where I feel the need to keep serious. It was pure deflection.
As a former journalist, I was disgusted by the Nuzzi profile. In the reader comments, I tried to ask how serious journalists in the NYT newsroom feel about the publication giving Nuzzi this glamour-shot treatment. I noted that no other reporter who engaged in similar conduct would be legitimized or rehabilitated in this way, and that it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Nuzzi's looks were a factor in the coverage. I ended by imploring the Times to “do better.” The NYT did not publish my comment.
A follow-up: After some thought, the Nuzzi piece and the “Epstein/Lost New York” story clinched it for me. I ended up cancelling my NYT subscription.
The rot at the NYT matches the moral decay which Bunch describes so perfectly.
I truly think that Olivia Nuzzi needs help (of the mental health kind) not a hagiographic article about her "struggles". I think it can be argued that for quite some time, the NYT has been a clickbait machine, with some ancillary good reporting about the world.
Will Bunch (Philly Inquirer subscriber here) is better than most and Ken White is as succinct, honest, and fearless as they come.
If journalism was led by the Bunch's and the White's of the business, there would be fewer Epsteins in this world.
Alas, we do not have brave people running media, we have psycophants willing to play a game to line pockets.
“Psycophants” as a portmanteau of psychopath and sycophant is brilliant, whether intentional or not.
Thank you for noticing…. intentional :)
Slow clap with impressed nod!
Agreed!!!
The most important story, that may or may not be in the Epstein files, is Russian money-laundering.
This above all, and only when the victims have been totally validated, is what I pray will be revealed. In particular, I am dying to know about the billions transferred to Russian banks. I hope I can manage the stench . . .
I heartily agree! While everyone’s parsing what is or is not a child/woman, and whether sex with a 15yo is rape or not, the money laundering part gets swept under the table. I think that’s what the NYT is nostalgic for—massive amounts of $$$ being shuffled around without scrutiny….
This is a DJT statement from this past weekend-“If Jeffrey Epstein had any dirt on Donald Trump, he would have had great leverage in the criminal case against him at the time he died."
Not suspicious at all, right?
Two weeks before Epstein is arrested he texts Steve Bannon-
"Now you can understand why trump wakes up in the middle of the night sweating when he hears you and I are friends."
Thank you for this open mike Margaret Sullivan. As the onion of the obvious continues to unfold the question, how many people had Epstein ensnared in his Pedophile Club, is coming out soon. A lot! A lot, lot, it appears. His silence was very likely guaranteed by someone powerful enough to break bones in an already broken man. Four pathologists who examined his body told Epstein's brother the "suicide" appeared to be anything but. Trump will continue to be eaten alive by his own diseased brain. With more blood clots ahead, his next stroke (not one the golf course) liikely will leave him speechless. Soon enough to be gone, but never forgotten are the history and the herstories relating to this American monster.
If Donald Trump’s voting supporters cared one whit about morales, morality, and decency, yes, this would have a negative impact on his future.
BUT…
And I will leave it at that.
I really hope that BUT doesn't happen even though I agree it probably will.
Continue to agree with you about the NYT. Also on AI…am using it to research my new book and finding all kinds of errors. This should be more front and center in the AI discussion.
My husband -- fully capable of handling complex math questions -- decided to double check how much water was needed when using 1.5 cups of rice rather than 1 cup. AI came back with use seven cups of rice for each cup of water. Don't let AI do your math problems!
When I saw the headline for the Times' nostalgia piece, I simply moved on. As a New Yorker, I had no intention of revisiting that tacky era when all recent progress toward a humane society was swept away seemingly overnight. I recall being at a cocktail party where I met a very British-sounding Australian who identified himself as the Editorial Page editor for the NY Post which had recently been acquired by Murdoch. I said, "James Wechsler's name is still on the mast-head for that position." He smiled with unabashed cynicism, saying "Oh, we just keep Jimmy around to remove any Anglicisms that might crop up in my prose." Wechsler of course had been a true liberal all his life, and this guy (Rothwell, I think) provided my first glimpse of the amoral, materialistic, reactionary age that would produce Trump.
I'm not usually a cynic, but having already mentioned NY Times Pitchbot in a comment, I don't think I can find better words for what I feel about the impact on Trump's base than these words filed under that moniker:
- NY Times Pitchbot
@nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Analysis | Trump can rehabilitate his image with his base if he can make them aware that many of his and Epstein’s teenage victims were not American.
NY Times Pitchbot
@nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Nothing will happen to any of the prominent people who continued to fraternize with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted of sex trafficking. Here’s why cancel culture has gone too far.
NY Times Pitchbot
@nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Analysis | The Epstein revelations have roiled Trump’s base. Here’s how many kids worldwide his administration will have to starve to win the base back.
The poor @NYTpitchbot has a hard time staying more absurd than the actual Times desk.