New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet is on the defensive over the Times coverage of Hillary Clinton as well he should be.
The Times has been shockingly biased against her-but then so has most of the media. Politico has this smug headline that 'Hillary's email just won't go away'-actually it might if they'd shut up about it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-cia-214654
The sin of the Beltway press has been to hype the Emailgate story uncritically without context. They have simply taken the leaks of the Trey Gowdy Committee and run with them uncritically even though these have been cherrypicked-and a breach of good faith with Democrats on the Benghazi Committee as he had vowed no leaks.
Banquet insists the Times hasn't been biased.
"New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet again found himself defending the paper's Hillary Clinton coverage on Sunday"
"Responding to accusations that the Times is unfair to Clinton and her campaign, Baquet acknowledged the Times' screw-up on a recent story — which the Times corrected — that erroneously claimed a criminal inquiry was being sought into Clinton's email usage during her time as secretary of state."
"While that story "fueled" criticism about the Times' Clinton coverage, said Baquet during an interview on CNN, "We're aggressive on all the candidates." He likewise emphasized the breadth of the Times' Clinton coverage."
"I will also point out that we also broke the story today about dissension within the Benghazi committee," he said. "We also did the most deeply reported story about who did what in the whole Benghazi fiasco that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador, which I think the Clinton people would say was fair and did not point a finger at her. So I think if you add all that up, and add up the daily coverage of her, we're not unfair. You have to look at the full picture. And you have to look at the fact that when we screw up, we own up to it."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/10/dean-baquet-defends-ny-times-clinton-coverage-214661#ixzz3oMLeSSJd
But you have to qualify 'aggressive'-it's one thing to question candidates on issues but with Hillary it's been very personal. What got the Times into trouble was it's credulous running of Gowdy's cherrypicked leaks.
The Times never thought to qualify its source-after all this is a Republican dominated committee that stands to gain from harming Hillary's poll numbers-as we now have confirmation was the sole purpose of the Committee.
If the coverage of her compared with her rivals has been the same then why do so many Republican candidates also have a history with private email yet the Times has focused exclusively on her?
And show me any other candidate that the Times has actually sponsored a book like Clinton's Cash from a notorious Republican operative. The only purpose of CC is clearly oppo searcher yet the Times sponsored the book and even worked with the author to dig up dirt.
Until Baquet can explain Clinton's Cash, his denials aren't worth much.
Then you get to the ways in which the entire Beltway has been unfair in its coverage. Until Kevin McCarthy's suicidal moment of candor the Times like most media outlets had focused almost entirely on Emailgate, speculation on Biden running, and cherrypicked polls meant to show that she's in trouble against Bernie.
Even now the use of Biden in topline polls is unfair as it artificially drives down her poll numbers-though even with Biden in it she's in pretty good shape at this point. It seems poll respondents are catching on that the Biden candidacy is must media hype much like the Rubio surge or Trump decline.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/new-polls-rubio-isnt-surging-and-trump.html
The Times has been shockingly biased against her-but then so has most of the media. Politico has this smug headline that 'Hillary's email just won't go away'-actually it might if they'd shut up about it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-cia-214654
The sin of the Beltway press has been to hype the Emailgate story uncritically without context. They have simply taken the leaks of the Trey Gowdy Committee and run with them uncritically even though these have been cherrypicked-and a breach of good faith with Democrats on the Benghazi Committee as he had vowed no leaks.
Banquet insists the Times hasn't been biased.
"New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet again found himself defending the paper's Hillary Clinton coverage on Sunday"
"Responding to accusations that the Times is unfair to Clinton and her campaign, Baquet acknowledged the Times' screw-up on a recent story — which the Times corrected — that erroneously claimed a criminal inquiry was being sought into Clinton's email usage during her time as secretary of state."
"While that story "fueled" criticism about the Times' Clinton coverage, said Baquet during an interview on CNN, "We're aggressive on all the candidates." He likewise emphasized the breadth of the Times' Clinton coverage."
"I will also point out that we also broke the story today about dissension within the Benghazi committee," he said. "We also did the most deeply reported story about who did what in the whole Benghazi fiasco that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador, which I think the Clinton people would say was fair and did not point a finger at her. So I think if you add all that up, and add up the daily coverage of her, we're not unfair. You have to look at the full picture. And you have to look at the fact that when we screw up, we own up to it."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/10/dean-baquet-defends-ny-times-clinton-coverage-214661#ixzz3oMLeSSJd
But you have to qualify 'aggressive'-it's one thing to question candidates on issues but with Hillary it's been very personal. What got the Times into trouble was it's credulous running of Gowdy's cherrypicked leaks.
The Times never thought to qualify its source-after all this is a Republican dominated committee that stands to gain from harming Hillary's poll numbers-as we now have confirmation was the sole purpose of the Committee.
If the coverage of her compared with her rivals has been the same then why do so many Republican candidates also have a history with private email yet the Times has focused exclusively on her?
And show me any other candidate that the Times has actually sponsored a book like Clinton's Cash from a notorious Republican operative. The only purpose of CC is clearly oppo searcher yet the Times sponsored the book and even worked with the author to dig up dirt.
Until Baquet can explain Clinton's Cash, his denials aren't worth much.
Then you get to the ways in which the entire Beltway has been unfair in its coverage. Until Kevin McCarthy's suicidal moment of candor the Times like most media outlets had focused almost entirely on Emailgate, speculation on Biden running, and cherrypicked polls meant to show that she's in trouble against Bernie.
Even now the use of Biden in topline polls is unfair as it artificially drives down her poll numbers-though even with Biden in it she's in pretty good shape at this point. It seems poll respondents are catching on that the Biden candidacy is must media hype much like the Rubio surge or Trump decline.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/new-polls-rubio-isnt-surging-and-trump.html
No comments:
Post a Comment