The New York Times ran a story about [Jeff] Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador, and they ran Claire McCaskill's tweet excoriating Sessions for doing this and saying that he should resign. Well, then it was produced that Claire McCaskill had, in fact, sent two other tweets where she was bragging about having spent time with the Russian ambassador. So the New York Times, rather than print that, just removed her from the whole story.
Then let's print up some flyers!
I think what's actually happened is print media is becoming obsolete, and this is like the floundering corpse of a dying media. It is just twitching.
If I told you all the people that have secretly told me I've influenced them, you'd never believe it, and you'll never see it in print, either.
In the '30s, the Keynesian stuff worked at least in the sense that you could print money without inflation because there was all this productivity growth happening. That's not going to work today.
I think the relationship between print and film is symbiotic, it's more about evolving and complimenting your existing content. The two are very much interconnected.
I have the perfect simplified tax form for government. Why don't they just print our money with a return address on it?
Storytelling is my currency. It's my only worth. The only thing of value I have in this life is my ability to tell a story, whether in print, orating, writing it down or having people acting it out.
In a print interview, as you may or may not know, they [editors] can do whatever they want. And they do. This is why most people are more hesitant to do print, because they can change it, and they do change it. They even change things that are in quotation marks, which is a pet peeve of mine. I've said to numerous reporters, "Would you read me back my direct quotes?" And they always say no. They always say that's against the policy.
Many people who want to be writers don't really want to be writers. They want to have been writers. They wish they had a book in print.
I love anything leopard print, but sometimes an all over print can be a bit much.
Some said, "John, print it"; others said "Not so. " Some said, "It might do good"; others said, "No. "
Today they have proven once again that the mainstream media can't print enough bad news about our troops.
You really can't say things that upset someone in print and expect them to be nice and leave you their money. That's just not reasonable.
It used to be, if you were a reporter, you wrote a story and then you moved on to the next one. We were used to people coming to the New York Times. We waited for them to turn on our website or to pick up our print paper and see what we have. We now understand that we have to make our stories available to our readers. A lot of people get their news from Facebook or Twitter and we want to make sure that they see some of our best stories there, too. We do this more aggressively now than we did before.
We've got to lift our game tremendously. We'll sell our business news and information in print, we'll sell it to anyone who's got a cable system, and we'll sell it on the Web.
People think I'm against critics because they are negative to my work. That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is they didn't see the work. I have seen critics print stuff about stuff I cut out of the film before we ran it. So don't tell me about critics.
There isn't much room for an outsider point of view in print any more.
Once a paper admits any principle of censorship for survival, the we-don't-want-to-do-it-but-we-don't-want-to-lose-the-printer kind of censorship, it jeopardizes the integrity of its editorial principle. It's better to print and be damned, because you'll be damned anyway.
My dream scenario would be that you could go into a bookshop, examine copies of every book in print that they're able to offer, then for a fee have them produce in a minute or two a beautiful finished copy in a dust jacket that you would pay for and take home.