Quote

My worry about the New York Times is that it's got the only position as a national elitist general-interest paper. So the network news picks up its cues from the Times. And local papers do too. It has a huge influence. And we'd love to challenge it.

I'm always amused when the 'New York Times' writes editorials trying to be helpful to Republicans and say, 'This is the way Republicans can save themselves.' Look, the 'New York Times' disagrees with us. They're entitled to disagree with us, but it's not like we should take their advice.

The big thing in favor of doing an editorial on the front page is that it would be a powerful signal of how concerned we are about guns.

I know that doesn't sound very radical and webby of me to say that but I think the New York Times is important. I also think there's an occasional piece that will pop out.

'The New York Times' list is a bunch of crap. They ought to call it the editor's choice. It sure isn't based on sales.

Embedded in 'The New York Times' institutional perspective and reporting methodologies are all sorts of quite debatable and subjective political and cultural assumptions about the world. And with some noble exceptions, 'The Times,' by design or otherwise, has long served the interests of the same set of elite and powerful factions.

The federal government is doing less than it is lawfully entitled to do to protect New York City, and the City is less safe as a result.

There are competing studies on how much crime drops or doesn't drop when there are strict rules on gun possession and sale. I don't think there's any question that New York City's very tough laws have reduced violence.

I know real people, whose names I could tell you, people I know who have said 'I've stopped buying the New York Times.' Why? Because their editorial position has filtered, has leached into the news pages.