Analysis: How much longer will the failing nytimes, with its big losse...

9y ago Aug 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM

How much longer will the failing nytimes, with its big losses and massive unfunded liability (and non-existent sources), remain in business?

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-11. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

Elevated

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

60%

This post exemplifies Trump's sustained campaign to delegitimize the New York Times specifically and independent journalism generally. The rhetorical question format — "How much longer will [X] remain in business?" — crosses from criticism into implicit wish for institutional destruction, notable given the power asymmetry between a sitting president and a news organization. The triple-attack parenthetical structure (financial losses, pension liability, source credibility) reveals systematic rumination on perceived vulnerabilities. Factually, the "failing" characterization was contradicted by the NYT's subscription growth during this period. The post functions within a broader pattern visible in the day's earlier posts, which collectively attack media credibility while asserting base loyalty — a classic narcissistic cycle of devaluation of critics paired with idealization of supporters. The danger level is elevated not due to direct incitement but due to the cumulative effect of presidential delegitimization of press institutions.

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Aggressive rhetorical question format
Parenthetical asides packing multiple attacks
Use of 'failing' epithet (signature Trump branding)
No typos but raw emotional tone
Business hours but authentic style

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (NYT critical coverage)

Rage: Intensity 60% targeting New York Times

Proportionality

30%

Sentiment

-0.70

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

60%

Antisocial

40%

Paranoid

30%

Sadism

30%

Defense Mechanisms:

devaluationdenial

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

50%

Parasocial Techniques:

Inviting audience to share contempt for media institutionRhetorical question creates participatory dynamic

Danger Assessment

Elevated

Indicators:

Rhetorical question implying target should cease to exist
Pattern of delegitimizing free press as institution
Presidential power directed at specific media outlet's viability

Gaslighting Detected:

Dismissing verified journalism as based on 'non-existent sources'
Characterizing a financially recovering institution as 'failing'

Reality Distortions:

NYT characterized as 'failing' despite growing subscriptions
All anonymous sources dismissed as 'non-existent'

Fact Checks (3)

"NYT has big losses"

Mostly False

NYT was experiencing the 'Trump bump' in digital subscriptions in 2017, with growing revenue. While print advertising declined industry-wide, the company was not 'failing.'

"Massive unfunded liability"

Half True

NYT did have significant pension obligations, a real financial concern, but 'massive' is hyperbolic and the company was managing these obligations.

"Non-existent sources"

False

Anonymous sourcing is standard journalistic practice; NYT sources were real people whose identities were protected. Multiple stories were later confirmed.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

AI Analysis

Analysis: Attack on New York Times (2017-08-07)

Post Context

Content Analysis

Psychological Dynamics

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"NYT has big losses"	Mostly False	NYT was experiencing the 'Trump bump' in digital subscriptions in 2017, with growing revenue. While print advertising declined industry-wide, the company was not 'failing.'
"Massive unfunded liability"	Half True	NYT did have significant pension obligations, a real financial concern, but 'massive' is hyperbolic and the company was managing these obligations.
"Non-existent sources"	False	Anonymous sourcing is standard journalistic practice; NYT sources were real people whose identities were protected. Multiple stories were later confirmed.