The New York Times is widely considered to be one of the most reliable and trusted new sources in the Western World, and has been considered arguably, the gold standard of journalism for more than a century. The New York Times has also been one of the most vocal critics in the media’s current ongoing war against Trump. With the possible exceptions of CNN (which has seen its credibility collapse at this point) or the likes of the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed (neither of which really qualify as news anyway), no organisation has been more vicious in its attacks against Trump, than the New York Times. With all the credibility that the NYT has built up over the past century, it’s perfectly understandable that people will be inclined to trust them. When you have an organisation like the NYT opposing you, and have the likes of Fox News supporting you, it really doesn’t do much to help your own credibility. However, I believe that there’s a major conflict of interest for the NYT in regards to Donald Trump, and I believe this conflict of interest can potentially bias their reporting on him.
Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim has taken a financial hammering since Trump rose to political prominence. In dollar terms, at least, nobody has lost more, Bloomberg reports.
By Bloomberg’s reckoning, the telecom magnate’s personal fortune fell from just below $67 billion on June 15, 2015—the eve of Trump’s presidential bid commencement—to about $51 billion this Wednesday. Where he’d once held pole-position on the Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index, he’s now in sixth.
A drop of $16 Billion in the space of a year and a half, is an awful lot. If such a loss really could be attributed to the actions of one man (Trump), you could probably expect him to hold a grudge against him.
Asset losses are a multi-factored affair and Slim’s personal value actually peaked in October 2014 when he was worth $81 billion—but Trump’s Mexico-bashing has apparently hacked away at the value of his asset base. In 2015, Forbes listed him as the year’s biggest billionaire loser. Although the Peso has rallied in recent weeks, it plummeted through 2016, forcing Mexico to raise interest rates. And when the Peso slumps, so does Slim.
Or so the thinking goes.
Just wait until the Glorious Leader actually builds the wall. If the Peso (and by extension, Slim’s fortune) is taking this much of a beating already, can you imagine how bad it will get for him when the wall is finished?
But a surprising flip-side to the 77-year-old telecoms tycoon’s monetary losses has been his gain in popularity. When Slim met Trump in Mar-a-Lago for, what the latter described as “a lovely dinner with a wonderful man” last December, many Mexicans were impressed. A poll conducted by El Universal the following month reportedly showed Slim pipping populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the Mexican considered best-suited to face Trump.
Yeah, but I’m sure if given the choice he’d prefer to have the 16 Billion Dollars though.
“16 Billion Dollars in exchange for greater popularity? Hmm, I’d be happier with the 16 Billion Dollars.”
According to Bloomberg, it’s not only Slim’s defiance of Trump but his calls for greater economic self-reliance that have appealed to Mexicans. A price war and regulatory crackdown pushing down cell phone bills might have helped too.
Anyway, you may be wondering how this article about a billionaire losing 16 Billion Dollars because of Trump has anything to do with the NYT. Well, it’s very simple. Look at who the biggest single shareholder in the NYT is.
Now lets be realistic here. A newspaper is just like any other business. Its main purpose is to work towards the interests of its shareholders. A successful Trump presidency, in which he manages to accomplish the goals he has set out to accomplish, will damage the financial interests of the NYT’s largest shareholder of all. Therefore, is it really a stretch to say that it is in the interest of the NYT to undermine the Trump presidency as much as possible, in order to prevent him from accomplishing his goals, and thus in the process, protect the financial interests of their largest shareholder?
I fully support the concept of an uncontrolled and independent press, who are free to report on things, without fear of government suppression for doing so. However, ordinary people seem to forget that journalists are ultimately just employees who have employers to answer to, and these employers are human beings with interests of their own. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased source for news. Every news source is run by a human being, not an emotionless robot, and so it stands to reason that every news source has the potential to reflect the interests and biases of the person in control. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re automatically going to be wrong when discussing certain topics because of it, but it does mean that people should consider these potential biases and conflicts of interest, instead of automatically taking whatever they say on board. Sure, this blog is also completely biased, but at least I’m upfront and honest about it.
Just some food for thought.