When David Brock discusses the decades long Holy War of the NY Times, some find this impossible to believe. They seem to think that conspiracies just don't happen-which shows they know little of history.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/you-go-david-brock-his-new-book-calls.html
I mean is you remember the 90s you remember that the entire 90s went on a 8 year conspiracy to destroy the Clintons by hook or by crook-the ultimate impeachment of President Clinton was a wholly Pyrrhic victory of course.
Part of why folks like Chris Hayes-who at least interviewed Brock on MSNBC the other night-Brocks' important book was ignored by the other MSNBC hosts of this allegedly liberal network-seem to have a hard time imagining that the Times could actually have a conspiracy to bring down Clinton is they just cant imagine there'd be a motive.
In a way Hayes is being obtuse; I mean just look at how unfair the Times coverage really has been to Hillary since her campaign started and it's obvious there is a conspiracy to bring her down-whatever the motive might be, it clearly exists.
That Ms. Ryan does have a hard on for Hillary Clinton for whatever reason is clear enough.
"Via aggregator Daily Newsbin, some deliciousness:
"After months of negative stories about 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton which were almost bizarrely inaccurate and had to be repeatedly retracted, the New York Times has finally taken definitive action within its organizational structure to put a stop to the strange editorial agenda. Carolyn Ryan is now officially out as Washington Bureau Chief, and while the newspaper isn’t referring to it as a firing, the move was made after less than two years on the job."
"The NY Times had been pushing various strange and false storylines regarding Hillary Clinton and her campaign. An article depicting doom and gloom for Clinton based on her standard-issue use of private email as Secretary of State was deemed so factually inaccurate that even after a comprehensive retraction was published, so much additional false information was found within the story that an unprecedented second retraction had to be issued. The article was deemed to be such a work of fiction that even the Times’ own Public Editor criticized the hatchet job."
To quote Margaret Sullivan – the Public Editor in question – herself,
"Arlene Williams, a longtime subscriber, wrote and objected to “what I see as jaded coverage concerning Hillary Clinton.” News articles and opinion columns are “just consistently negative,” she said. And Ben Lieberman of Acton, Mass., said The Times seemed to be “on a mission to cut her down to size.”
"These readers aren’t alone. The press critic and New York University professor Jay Rosen wrote on Twitter: “I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today’s events it’s fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton.” Rachel Maddow said last week on MSNBC that the attitude of the national press corps, including The Times, is, “Everything Hillary Clinton does is a scandal.” And James Fallows of The Atlantic called what he sees as a Times “Clinton vendetta” a “serious lapse,” linking to a letter the Clinton campaign wrote in response to the Times story."
"To that end, [executive editor Dean Baquet] told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness. “I’m happy to make a promise that she’ll be treated fairly,” he said, though he added, “If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” One testament to that, he said, was an investigative piece written by David Kirkpatrick shortly after the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with conclusions seen as favorable for Mrs. Clinton, who was then secretary of state. It came under heavy attack from the right."
"But the Times’s “screw-up,” as Mr. Baquet called it, reinforces the need for reporters and their editors to be “doubly vigilant and doubly cautious.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/09/1419715/-NYT-D-C-bureau-chief-out-over-failed-Clinton-coverage#
So for those who think that the claim of anti Hillary coverage is bogus, the Times' own public editor admits to this.
One point of clarity: It's not at all clear that Ms. Ryan was fired for her terrible Clinton coverage or indeed fired at all-if anything she seems to have traded in one cushy job for another.
Under Ryan the Times took the unprecedented step of helping an anti Clinton author publish Clinton's Cash.
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses-ebook/dp/B00Q33PRDS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442081673&sr=1-1&keywords=Clinton%27s+cash
http://www.amazon.com/Summary-Critique-Peter-Schweizers-Clinton-ebook/dp/B00XFSONPW/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442081673&sr=1-2&keywords=Clinton%27s+cash
When Clinton defenders tried to correct the record, Ms. Ryan refused to let them give more than a two sentence rebuttal under the logic that 'The Clinton's just lie.'
Here she is praising Bernie Sanders-mostly so as to knock Hillary.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/07/05/ny-times-politics-editor-carolyn-ryan-declares/204251
For 24 years, the Times has served as an allegedly liberal conduit to Right wing conspiracy theories about Hillary.
They broke the Whitewater story in 1992 that would ultimately lead to Ken Starr. Then when Starr was ready to give up and go back to teaching, the Times' William Safire kept it going by getting Starr onto the Lewinsky affair.
Now the Times has been extremely aggressive in promoting the email story and no one can even say what it's about-it's taken a life unto itself-just like Whitewater did.
There are probably a few interlocking motives for the Times over this period but part is the Beltway press' long disdain for Hillary and desire to finally bring her down.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/you-go-david-brock-his-new-book-calls.html
I mean is you remember the 90s you remember that the entire 90s went on a 8 year conspiracy to destroy the Clintons by hook or by crook-the ultimate impeachment of President Clinton was a wholly Pyrrhic victory of course.
Part of why folks like Chris Hayes-who at least interviewed Brock on MSNBC the other night-Brocks' important book was ignored by the other MSNBC hosts of this allegedly liberal network-seem to have a hard time imagining that the Times could actually have a conspiracy to bring down Clinton is they just cant imagine there'd be a motive.
In a way Hayes is being obtuse; I mean just look at how unfair the Times coverage really has been to Hillary since her campaign started and it's obvious there is a conspiracy to bring her down-whatever the motive might be, it clearly exists.
That Ms. Ryan does have a hard on for Hillary Clinton for whatever reason is clear enough.
"Via aggregator Daily Newsbin, some deliciousness:
"After months of negative stories about 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton which were almost bizarrely inaccurate and had to be repeatedly retracted, the New York Times has finally taken definitive action within its organizational structure to put a stop to the strange editorial agenda. Carolyn Ryan is now officially out as Washington Bureau Chief, and while the newspaper isn’t referring to it as a firing, the move was made after less than two years on the job."
"The NY Times had been pushing various strange and false storylines regarding Hillary Clinton and her campaign. An article depicting doom and gloom for Clinton based on her standard-issue use of private email as Secretary of State was deemed so factually inaccurate that even after a comprehensive retraction was published, so much additional false information was found within the story that an unprecedented second retraction had to be issued. The article was deemed to be such a work of fiction that even the Times’ own Public Editor criticized the hatchet job."
To quote Margaret Sullivan – the Public Editor in question – herself,
"Arlene Williams, a longtime subscriber, wrote and objected to “what I see as jaded coverage concerning Hillary Clinton.” News articles and opinion columns are “just consistently negative,” she said. And Ben Lieberman of Acton, Mass., said The Times seemed to be “on a mission to cut her down to size.”
"These readers aren’t alone. The press critic and New York University professor Jay Rosen wrote on Twitter: “I have resisted this conclusion over the years, but after today’s events it’s fair to say the Times has a problem covering Hillary Clinton.” Rachel Maddow said last week on MSNBC that the attitude of the national press corps, including The Times, is, “Everything Hillary Clinton does is a scandal.” And James Fallows of The Atlantic called what he sees as a Times “Clinton vendetta” a “serious lapse,” linking to a letter the Clinton campaign wrote in response to the Times story."
"To that end, [executive editor Dean Baquet] told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness. “I’m happy to make a promise that she’ll be treated fairly,” he said, though he added, “If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” One testament to that, he said, was an investigative piece written by David Kirkpatrick shortly after the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with conclusions seen as favorable for Mrs. Clinton, who was then secretary of state. It came under heavy attack from the right."
"But the Times’s “screw-up,” as Mr. Baquet called it, reinforces the need for reporters and their editors to be “doubly vigilant and doubly cautious.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/09/1419715/-NYT-D-C-bureau-chief-out-over-failed-Clinton-coverage#
So for those who think that the claim of anti Hillary coverage is bogus, the Times' own public editor admits to this.
One point of clarity: It's not at all clear that Ms. Ryan was fired for her terrible Clinton coverage or indeed fired at all-if anything she seems to have traded in one cushy job for another.
Under Ryan the Times took the unprecedented step of helping an anti Clinton author publish Clinton's Cash.
http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses-ebook/dp/B00Q33PRDS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442081673&sr=1-1&keywords=Clinton%27s+cash
http://www.amazon.com/Summary-Critique-Peter-Schweizers-Clinton-ebook/dp/B00XFSONPW/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442081673&sr=1-2&keywords=Clinton%27s+cash
When Clinton defenders tried to correct the record, Ms. Ryan refused to let them give more than a two sentence rebuttal under the logic that 'The Clinton's just lie.'
Here she is praising Bernie Sanders-mostly so as to knock Hillary.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/07/05/ny-times-politics-editor-carolyn-ryan-declares/204251
For 24 years, the Times has served as an allegedly liberal conduit to Right wing conspiracy theories about Hillary.
They broke the Whitewater story in 1992 that would ultimately lead to Ken Starr. Then when Starr was ready to give up and go back to teaching, the Times' William Safire kept it going by getting Starr onto the Lewinsky affair.
Now the Times has been extremely aggressive in promoting the email story and no one can even say what it's about-it's taken a life unto itself-just like Whitewater did.
There are probably a few interlocking motives for the Times over this period but part is the Beltway press' long disdain for Hillary and desire to finally bring her down.
No comments:
Post a Comment