Quote

'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.

Yeah, the New York Times is very intellectual and very, very prestigious, but it doesn't reach the market that People magazine does.

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 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.

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.

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 mean, if you have to wake up in the morning to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you got a pretty sorry existence.

I'm never surprised by the insensitivity of 'The New York Times' editorial board.

I read the 'New York Times,' 'USA Today,' the 'Union-Tribune,' then go online to Drudge, CNN, Fox News, blogs.