Krugman charges that the media is now objectively pro Trump and so it is.
"... it’s something special about Clinton Rules. I don’t really understand it. But it has the feeling of a high school clique bullying a nerdy classmate because it’s the cool thing to do."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/why-are-the-media-objectively-pro-trump/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Yes, it's the Clinton Rules. The media is objectively pro Trump as it's subjectively anti Clinton.
But speaking of objectively pro Trump, Maureen Dowd goes it one step further. She is even subjectively pro Trump.
Lawrence O'Donnell had a great show the other night about the horrible media bias covering Hillary vs. Trump. You can agree with how the media treats Hillary or how it treats Trump. But you can't agree with both because they are night and day.
However, I made the mistake of watching Lawrence's last segment where he had Maureen Dowd on. to talk about her new book.
Ok that's kind of charitable.
When he had announced she was coming on, he had said like he have a Republican brother.
Ha! This ignores the fact that Dowd herself is a Republican in terms of her conduct over the years. She was bosom buddies with W. Then there is her very close friendship with Donald Trump.
Lawrence O'Donnell did ask her about the idea she's a Hillary hater. Dowd made on of her typically lame jokes that these are politicians and she saves love and hate for ex boyfriends. This is classic Maureen Dowd.
I will say just one nice thing about her: at 64 years old, she does look very good. I could believe she is a lot younger.
However, as a journalist it's amazing to me she is still playing that person: you know this sort of too cool for school Belle of the Ball type. Looking for Mr. Goodbar. She's a spiritual sister of Cokie Roberts.
Heather Digby had the best impression of Cokie Roberts: 'It doesn't matter if she said it or not. I was at the beauty parlor today and that's all anyone is talking about.'
In calling Dowd's new publication a book you are being for more charitable than she's ever been towards Hillary Clinton.
"Put aside whether cobbling together a bunch of newspaper columns with a small amount of fresh material is too easy a way to publish a “new book.” Dowd has spent two decades mining (and mocking) the minds of these two very American, and often tragic, figures. We are living in a raging bull market for a biting New York Times columnist to describe as bull two New York grandparents ensconced in the bubble of the upper .01 percent while championing the ordinary people they know mostly as staff."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/books/review/maureen-dowd-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-year-of-voting-dangerously.html
So it's a cut and paste job of her 24 years of Hillary bashing.
As for the claim that Dowd champions ordinary people, this is so absurd it defies description. Talk about not even passing the laugh test.
Ms. Dowd spends time hobnobbing with George W. Bush-as she did in 2000-and now Donald Trump.
I thought the idea that Trump is a populist billionaire was the most absurd idea of this election cycle-in truth he may not even be a billionaire but he has done nothing but prey on regular people his entire privileged life.
But that Maureen Dowd with her cushy, vapid job of pure style over substance champions regular people is right up there in terms of a laugh test. The People''s Billionaire meets the People's Fat Cat Beltway Journalist.
Again, calling her cut and paste piece a book and calling her a champion of regular folks is way more charitable than she'd ever dream of being towards Hillary Clinton.
This year, she says, “America got mad — and went mad.” But we’ve had it coming. Dowd has been tearing into the Clintons for more than 20 years — admirably so, given that she runs in the same liberal circles. Her Hillary is unteachable, paranoid and money-grubbing, and “only apologizes at the point of a gun.”
Whatever circles she very well may run in, she's not a liberal. She's a vapid Beltway hack. Compared to her Chris Clilizza is substantive: You know, Mr. Thanks for Reading.
“As a Clinton White House aide once explained to me,” she writes, “‘Hillary, though a Methodist, thinks of herself like an Episcopal bishop who deserves to live at the level of her wealthy parishioners, in return for devoting her life to God and good works.’” She likes this barb so much it appears three times in the book. She is merciless in rehashing how Hillary slimed Monica Lewinsky, pocketed $675,000 in Goldman Sachs cash for three speeches and has relied on “scummy” hatchet men like Dick Morris: “The Clintons don’t sparkle with honesty and openness. Between his lordly appetites and her queenly prerogatives, you always feel as if there’s something afoot.”
Who was this aide-the very same scummy hatchet man, Dick Morris?
On the other hand she is showing what journalism can be by being so incestuously buddy buddy with Donald Trump it'd make Bloomberg's Mark Halperin blush.
Dowd has had a more complicated relationship with the Donald. They are phone friends, she tells us, and they banter about sex, stardom, silliness and strategy. Trump, unlike Clinton, can’t help playing ball with Dowd. And she in turn can’t help having a ball writing about him. She started this campaign apparently charmed by the idea of a Trump presidency, given how impossible it is to divine his potential actions in office. “It’s always a pig in a poke,” she writes. “So why not a pig who pokes?”
As if Dowd has a desire to play ball with Hillary. So while she has a 25 year vendetta for Hillary she is charmed by the idea of a Trump Presidency.
Fascism is so ironic. Again, I think part of why she likes Trump so much is because he's Hillary's opponent. Dowd will always prefer Hillary's opponent no matter who it is.
Still, I have to agree with John Stoehr. Beltway hacks like Maureen Dowd, Cokie Roberts, Chris Cillizza are pretty shameful.
"Is the Press So Privileged That They Don’t Care Who Wins the Presidency?"
"... it’s something special about Clinton Rules. I don’t really understand it. But it has the feeling of a high school clique bullying a nerdy classmate because it’s the cool thing to do."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/why-are-the-media-objectively-pro-trump/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Yes, it's the Clinton Rules. The media is objectively pro Trump as it's subjectively anti Clinton.
But speaking of objectively pro Trump, Maureen Dowd goes it one step further. She is even subjectively pro Trump.
Lawrence O'Donnell had a great show the other night about the horrible media bias covering Hillary vs. Trump. You can agree with how the media treats Hillary or how it treats Trump. But you can't agree with both because they are night and day.
However, I made the mistake of watching Lawrence's last segment where he had Maureen Dowd on. to talk about her new book.
Ok that's kind of charitable.
When he had announced she was coming on, he had said like he have a Republican brother.
Ha! This ignores the fact that Dowd herself is a Republican in terms of her conduct over the years. She was bosom buddies with W. Then there is her very close friendship with Donald Trump.
Lawrence O'Donnell did ask her about the idea she's a Hillary hater. Dowd made on of her typically lame jokes that these are politicians and she saves love and hate for ex boyfriends. This is classic Maureen Dowd.
I will say just one nice thing about her: at 64 years old, she does look very good. I could believe she is a lot younger.
However, as a journalist it's amazing to me she is still playing that person: you know this sort of too cool for school Belle of the Ball type. Looking for Mr. Goodbar. She's a spiritual sister of Cokie Roberts.
Heather Digby had the best impression of Cokie Roberts: 'It doesn't matter if she said it or not. I was at the beauty parlor today and that's all anyone is talking about.'
In calling Dowd's new publication a book you are being for more charitable than she's ever been towards Hillary Clinton.
"Put aside whether cobbling together a bunch of newspaper columns with a small amount of fresh material is too easy a way to publish a “new book.” Dowd has spent two decades mining (and mocking) the minds of these two very American, and often tragic, figures. We are living in a raging bull market for a biting New York Times columnist to describe as bull two New York grandparents ensconced in the bubble of the upper .01 percent while championing the ordinary people they know mostly as staff."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/books/review/maureen-dowd-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-year-of-voting-dangerously.html
So it's a cut and paste job of her 24 years of Hillary bashing.
As for the claim that Dowd champions ordinary people, this is so absurd it defies description. Talk about not even passing the laugh test.
Ms. Dowd spends time hobnobbing with George W. Bush-as she did in 2000-and now Donald Trump.
I thought the idea that Trump is a populist billionaire was the most absurd idea of this election cycle-in truth he may not even be a billionaire but he has done nothing but prey on regular people his entire privileged life.
But that Maureen Dowd with her cushy, vapid job of pure style over substance champions regular people is right up there in terms of a laugh test. The People''s Billionaire meets the People's Fat Cat Beltway Journalist.
Again, calling her cut and paste piece a book and calling her a champion of regular folks is way more charitable than she'd ever dream of being towards Hillary Clinton.
This year, she says, “America got mad — and went mad.” But we’ve had it coming. Dowd has been tearing into the Clintons for more than 20 years — admirably so, given that she runs in the same liberal circles. Her Hillary is unteachable, paranoid and money-grubbing, and “only apologizes at the point of a gun.”
Whatever circles she very well may run in, she's not a liberal. She's a vapid Beltway hack. Compared to her Chris Clilizza is substantive: You know, Mr. Thanks for Reading.
“As a Clinton White House aide once explained to me,” she writes, “‘Hillary, though a Methodist, thinks of herself like an Episcopal bishop who deserves to live at the level of her wealthy parishioners, in return for devoting her life to God and good works.’” She likes this barb so much it appears three times in the book. She is merciless in rehashing how Hillary slimed Monica Lewinsky, pocketed $675,000 in Goldman Sachs cash for three speeches and has relied on “scummy” hatchet men like Dick Morris: “The Clintons don’t sparkle with honesty and openness. Between his lordly appetites and her queenly prerogatives, you always feel as if there’s something afoot.”
Who was this aide-the very same scummy hatchet man, Dick Morris?
On the other hand she is showing what journalism can be by being so incestuously buddy buddy with Donald Trump it'd make Bloomberg's Mark Halperin blush.
Dowd has had a more complicated relationship with the Donald. They are phone friends, she tells us, and they banter about sex, stardom, silliness and strategy. Trump, unlike Clinton, can’t help playing ball with Dowd. And she in turn can’t help having a ball writing about him. She started this campaign apparently charmed by the idea of a Trump presidency, given how impossible it is to divine his potential actions in office. “It’s always a pig in a poke,” she writes. “So why not a pig who pokes?”
As if Dowd has a desire to play ball with Hillary. So while she has a 25 year vendetta for Hillary she is charmed by the idea of a Trump Presidency.
Fascism is so ironic. Again, I think part of why she likes Trump so much is because he's Hillary's opponent. Dowd will always prefer Hillary's opponent no matter who it is.
Still, I have to agree with John Stoehr. Beltway hacks like Maureen Dowd, Cokie Roberts, Chris Cillizza are pretty shameful.
"Is the Press So Privileged That They Don’t Care Who Wins the Presidency?"
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/09/14/is-the-press-so-privileged-that-they-dont-care-who-wins-the-presidency/
The answer seems to be a resounding yes. At least the predominantly white Beltway press, they are so privileged. You see something very different among black journalists.
Cillizza acts as if this is just a contest to discover if the public prefers Less Filling or Tastes Great in their Budlight.
The media has abdicated it's role. It is simply shameful. It used to aspire at least to be an arbiter of truth. Now it's simply a 'neutral' umpire between two squabbling partisans.
No comments:
Post a Comment