Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xlinux 436 days ago
"ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times."

I didn't know this. So New York Times had no issue publishing lies for money. Everything is rotten these days

2 comments

Yeah, here it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/

A headline from the times during that same year: TRUMP GIVES A VAGUE HINT OF CANDIDACY (https://archive.is/xF2pW)

As much as I dislike advertising in general, and specifically the opinions in that ad, I think that whether the New York Times was willing to publish it is not the important detail here.

This was at a time when the US and China were working together to keep the USSR in check while at the same time the US was sending weapons to Taiwan so that they could be used to keep China in check. So imagine being China in 1991. The USSR has just fallen, so they're no longer a threat, but US-sold weapons are still being pointed at you from Taiwan. You'd want the US to leave you alone and stop arming your enemies. And here's this candidate who wants the US to step off the world stage and focus instead on what it can build alone at home.

It seems pretty likely that they'd be in favor of getting Trump elected. Whether they ultimately did is an open question, but if so then it's not shame on the New York Times, but shame on us for not better protecting ourselves against foreign interference.

In a sense most advertising boils down to publishing lies for money, to some degree or another.