Monday, October 5, 2015

NYT prints story on unions holding back on Hillary, neglects to print the nation's largest union endorsed her the next day

Well whaddya know.

[Narrative: Hillary's not doing well, no one wants her]

Saturday, October 2nd the NYT writes and publishes in their paper that the firefighters union is backing away from endorsing Hillary Clinton.

The very next day the nation's largest union, the NEA, endorses Clinton, the NYT does not write a story, they put a link online of the AP story; they do not put it in the paper.

It's kind of a big deal:

[Oops, didn't realize, Media Matters also wrote about this]

Sunday, September 27, 2015

This is how desperate the NYT is, another walk back of an already long reach...

NYT latest article is pretty much: "we caught Hillary in a lie", which they published, people just looking at the document were questioning it, they finally hours later corrected, their whole premise was false.

The reach went like this: Hillary said one thing and she said another thing that could be inconsistent with that other thing. And it's sorta related to something someone says said her assistant the NYT wrote a whole piece on it.

Except their report was completely false.

The article starts off with Judicial watch (far right-wing group) going after Hillary Clinton's assistant having a 2nd job, saying there was some rule broken. In talking about the issue on Mitchell Reports show Clinton says, as NYT printed:

“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”

So the NYT writes an entire piece that they found a document showing Hillary Clinton signed off of her assistant being able to have that job. This is supposed to be inconsistant with Hillary Clinton being directly involved with Huma getting her 2nd job, even if it was just a sign off... But guess what. Wasn't true. Hillary didn't sign off. This sad sad image spells out really how bad the NYT is when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

How the hell does that happen.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Things the NYT doesn't write about Hillary Clinton

Wednesday Sept 10the Dept of Justice revealed to a federal court:
“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision".
But the NYT chose not to cover it until late Friday night.

Since the NYT has been breathlessly writing (and mis-writing) about Hillary Clinton's emails since March, majority of them landing on the front page, you would think this would be part of their coverage. Guess again. It took 60 hours from the release of the statement for the NYT to admit it to their readers. The Washington Times (a right wing newspaper) published it first. It then took the NYT another 35 hours after Wash Times released the information, for NYT to publish it.

If you recall, they blame their "criminal probe" false story on a rush to scoop. This story on the other hand was absolutely true, and there was clearly no rush at all.

And when they finally put it into print, it was on page a14 on a Saturday. It makes you wonder, had Buzzfeed and MSNBC not gotten a hold of the information, would the NYT have written about it at all?

Keep in mind, pretty much all other emails stories insinuating wrong-doing, go on page a1. Heck, even NYT analyzing her spontaneity goes on a1. But this major addition to EmaILZ ends up somewhere on the bottom of the 14th page. And after 6 paragraphs of the story that they finally put up on Friday night online, they change the subject to her IT guy refusing to testify to the Benghazi committee.

The NYT is not just biased, they're not just yellow, they're corrupt.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

NYT continues their ugly trolling on Hillary Clinton

Here they pretend Al Gore, John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren are wanted by "jittery" supporters. Don't puke:

"Big-Name Plan Bs for Democrats Concerned About Hillary Clinton"

If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.
Front page, of course, all their trolling of her hits the front page.

Reminder, I only write about 5% of NYT HRC stories, and the other ones are not any more professional than pieces like this. They've been trolling endlessly with needling and negative micro-coverage, focused negative coverage, false stories, GOP narrative stories and ugly, snarky, nasty comments IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLES, straight since March. And they write an email story about once every 2-4 days. Trolling.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.
Did you get a load of those names? Biden aside, are you kidding me? The whole article is an insulting mess where they just see how many ways they can say the dems need "rescuing" because of Hillary. 

2 days prior to this there was an article titled "Hillary Clinton to show more humor and heart", declaring "there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious". And that's just the first line. 

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Sexual innuendo & another GOP HRC smear, from NYT

The lowest lives in the GOP love to insinuate Hillary Clinton and Huma Abeden are lesbian lovers (the Free Beacon types, Judicial Watch, etc). But surely no news organization would play along. Not even TMZ has yet... oh, wait.. here comes NYT, namely Maggie Haberman, who was hired by Dean Baquet to troll Hillary Clinton.

I don't even know what to say about this so I'll just post it:

From NYT Twitter account:

And an article they actually wrote and printed. And yes, those are the first 2 paragraphs.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

NYT continues to criminalize Hillary Clinton

NYT Michael Schmidt's follow up story to the one he MADE UP a couple of weeks ago, even though he was thoroughly busted, is continuing course, most likely based on what he, Deputy Editor Matt Purdy and Executive Editor Dean Baquet have decided to do about Hillary Clinton. In case for any reason you think "maybe it's not all that nefarious", think again...

Just reading through the NYT it's easy to see how they operate when it comes to trying to criminalize the Clintons, this time it's Hillary's turn. First was July 23rd LITERALLY writing that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe when it was absolutely not the case at all. This was actually made up. They printed it, blasted it out to millions of people emails and phones. And it was as far from the truth as possible. After taking 2 days to walk it back, fighting it hour by hour, to the point of leaving up the word "criminal" in the headline and lead even after finding out it wasn't the case.

But any time you read Schmidt's work it's pretty plain to see. This for example. When NYT wants to say something obnoxious, they find a random dude. Either an anon former official or a former employee of somehwere.
Others say (what the????) more than politics is at stake. “I was stunned to see that she didn’t use the State Department system for State Department business, as we were always told we had to do,” said William Johnson, a former Air Force officer who served at the department from 1999 to 2011.
Mr. Johnson said his concerns were only compounded by the discovery of classified information in the emails.
“If I’d done that, I’d be out on bond right now,” he said. He said he believed that someone should be punished — if not Mrs. Clinton, then career employees whose job was to safeguard secrets and preserve public records.
Hi. Yes, that's right, that's what Michael Jeff Gerth Schmidt wrote. And could anyone seriously care any less what some random dude thinks? Doesn't matter, it fits Schmidt's narrative. This random dude, Mr. Johnson's opinion is what Schmidt chooses to share. Here said random dude is going to chime in on the level of the deed in question.
“It’s not the end of the world; she didn’t give away the crown jewels,” Mr. Johnson said. “But this is not how things are supposed to be done.”
Moving on. Here's a significant insinuation of suspect activity by purposeful omission:
The email controversy breaks into three clear phases: Mrs. Clinton’s initial choices about how to set up her email; her decision to destroy messages she judged to be personal; and the discovery of classified information in an account where it is not allowed by law.
But in the entire subsection of "DELETED EMAILS" (dun dun dun), Mr. Schmidt at no time states anything related to the instructions are the sender chooses. It's in the State Dept manual, it applies to other departments, and even other parts of government, Jeb Bush for example chose his emails to archive the exact same way when he used HIS private server to host his private email ( for all his official business as Governor of Florida. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention what random Mr. Johnson thinks about the crown jewels but doesn't mention the State Dept manual for archiving emails? That's odd.

This is also interesting. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention a former ambassador who was relieved of his duty and cites his use of personal emails as one of the factors.
Scott Gration, ambassador to Kenya, resigned after a 2012 inspector general’s report accused him of flouting government rules, including the requirement that he use State Department email. “He has willfully disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for official government business,” the report said.
Let me clue you in on something, Scott Gration's IG report was lengthy, it included reports of his subordinates hiding in the bathroom when he came around because of how hostile he was, his telling subordinates he was going to shoot them in the head. Not checking his classified information. Etc. But Schmidt is pretending that the employee using personal email rose to the level of an ambassador fired.

And by the way, if you check out or have followed the Benghazi Democrats on Twitter you know EXACTLY how Mr. Cummings feels about what is going on with the Benghazi Committee as it relates to the emails drama you'll find this paragraph by Schmidt strangely worded:
The committee’s top Democrat, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said his concern has always been that the Benghazi inquiry — which he said comes on top of “seven or eight” investigations already conducted — would become a tool for Republicans who want to bash Mrs. Clinton. He said he believed that to a considerable degree, that is what has happened. “We have basically an unlimited budget to go after Hillary Clinton,” he said.
But Mr Cummings concerns are beyond the passive "will become a tool", he is claming out loud and in print that the head of the committee is using the committee as as the tool. Big difference. But Mr. Schmidt has worked closely with Gowdy and Issa since March, so he has every reason to keep that part from getting into the news, people might actually see more of what is going on.

Surely there is a reason Mr. Schmidt has never touched on Mr. Cummings part in the Benghazi Committee story. It is a story in and of itself, and I have yet to see if fully told in the NYT.

And you can tell by many of the things I've mentioned above, Mr. Schmidt is purposefully omitting information that might actually educate their readers, but by now you know, that's not what this is about. A matter of length perhaps. Funny, he sure didn't miss some "Mr. Johnson" saying that Hillary Clinton's actions would put someone else in prison.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

NYT throws away any pretense at journalism from the political news desk

Just when you think there might still be some journalistic anything at the NYT:
NYT is now using Maureen Dowd as a source and considers her a reporter, even though it is unclear if she just made this last "report" up.

Here Maureen Dowd is appearing to quote Beau Biden is as he is dying. This is in her over 150th (not a typo) anti-Clinton column. Pretty low.

No word on where she got this from, nothing saying "source", it's never been reported anywhere before, but there it is in quotes in the opinion column in the NYT. It's fine that you have quotes like that in an opinion column, often it's fiction and fantasy but not a news item so ok.

She also mentions what his friends and family have, to her claim, been discussing, but never mentions whether there is any sort of source or if she is continuing to "report" fictional, possible, or hypothetical events.

The next day Amy Choznic writes an article noted as an "Exclusive" that lands in the print version of the NYT, and uses Maureen Dowd as the source and reporter. Newp, not kidding. 

I will be flabbergasted for a long time after this. No response yet from NYT Public Editor on whether Maureed Dowd's account are fiction or if there was indeed a source.