The Public's View of Donald Trump

On October 2, 2018, the New York Times published an article by The Editorial Board titled Donal Trump and the Self-Made Sham. The New York Times Editorial Board is a composed of journalists that mainly response to write The Times's editorials. The board is part of the Opinion Department. In the article, the Editorial Board argues that Mr. Trump has been amplified about his tale Self-Made Billionaire, and it "looks less like innocent exaggeration than malicious deception."

Following the story, young Mr.Trump received a modest $1 million loan from his father, and he built his assert into a multibillion-dollar global empire. However, the Editorial Board claims that this story was a sham because Mr. Trump had received financial from his father as a toddler. Beside of his $1 million loan, Donald Trump also involved tens of millions from his family's wealth. According the The Times, Donald Trump had received from his father close to $9 million before he had turned 30 years old. As growing up in the rich family, he also benefits from "a well-connected family — the connections, the access to credit, the built-in safety net," the author states. Generally, the author argues that "Mr. Trump is only self-made if you don’t count the massive financial rewards he received from his father’s." So, saying that Donald Trump built his business empire with $1 million loans is a fiction to burnish his glorious life, the News Editorial Board argues.

The author starts by quoting Mr.Trump's myth "I built what I built myself" to catch the audience's attention and slightly states the main idea of the article as well. The audience are Americans who care about their president's story. The Times Editorial Board's purpose is to persuade readers believe that Donald Trump is trying to bend the truth about his life. Since The New York Times is a national papers, and the article attracts many views easily. The author is very successful in leading and introduce the story to the reader. However, most arguments from the article are not going with specific facts and evidences. I see more assumptions than evidences throughout the article. For example, the author claims that little Donald received about $200,000 a year by age 3, but it is not supported by any specific evidence. Meanwhile, those arguments can be biased anyway. Sometimes, the author shows negative attitudes toward Donald Trump by using words and critical tone of voice. Eventually, I agree with the Editorial Board that Donald Trump could not built his business empire with only $1 million. Even the article lacks of strong evidences, but everything makes sense to me.