'The New York Times' is inherent in what we are, but not worn as 'what we are'; it's important and crucial to all of us, but not something that was drilled in, in any specific ways.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
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.
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.
I'm very happy that the New York Times has spoken well of my stuff; who wouldn't be? But it's not a choice I made.
The art and culture that is New York, communications, finance, all these things help make up New York. The rest of the country should be happy that we are what we are.
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.
Yeah, the New York Times is very intellectual and very, very prestigious, but it doesn't reach the market that People magazine does.
In the New York Times, you're going to get completely different information than you would in the USA Today.
If 'The New York Times' didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. 'The Huffington Post' and everything else is predicated on 'The New York Times'. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence.
I intend to buy 'The New York Times.' Please don't take it as a joke.
I love all the different ways that New Yorkers show their individuality through what they choose to wear.
No opposing quotes found.