Spotted something wild in The New York Times' coverage lately—they've been slapping Michael Saylor with a bunch of creative nicknames. Wonder if that's what passes for serious journalism in 2025? The whole thing reads like editorial opinion dressed up as straight reporting. Guess when you can't make the argument stick on facts alone, adding personality quirks to your subject does the job just as well.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
13 Likes
Reward
13
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AirdropHunter007
· 22h ago
NYT's move is really brilliant, giving Saylor a nickname? Now that's what I call serious news haha
View OriginalReply0
LongTermDreamer
· 22h ago
Oh, the New York Times' trick... giving Saylor a nickname to replace solid reasoning. I've seen this kind of tactic three years ago; history always repeats itself. But on the other hand, isn't focusing on the facts themselves more important than paying attention to the media's attitude?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-3824aa38
· 22h ago
NYT's operation is truly outrageous; giving someone a nickname just for a report? Isn't that just gossip from the editorial department?
View OriginalReply0
ZenZKPlayer
· 22h ago
NYT's roster trick is truly outrageous. Is this still considered news?
Spotted something wild in The New York Times' coverage lately—they've been slapping Michael Saylor with a bunch of creative nicknames. Wonder if that's what passes for serious journalism in 2025? The whole thing reads like editorial opinion dressed up as straight reporting. Guess when you can't make the argument stick on facts alone, adding personality quirks to your subject does the job just as well.