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.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

This week in "We Cover Hillary Clinton Fairly"

After a botched hit-piece and many a mention of the NYT ridiculously biased coverage against Hillary Clinton, word this week from multiple people at the NYT is that there's no difference in their HRC coverage vs other candidates. Feel free to scroll through my blog a see what you think, but here's a NYT mini photo montage of what no bias looks like. Just a few pics from March through June. NYT cover several other candidates and I can almost guarantee you, they do not look like this.

This a few weeks before Hillary Clinton announces 
(right after the first botched email story they walked back in March):

This accompanied an op-ed by weekly columnist Frank Bruni
about how Hillary Clinton makes democrats sick, titled "Hillary the tormentor".

The Prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the 
White House will reach its suspenseless conclusion"

This cuz any opportunity to decapitate her is good enough:

This is the only one not from this year. 

All excuses aside (whatever those could be), there are not images like these for the other candidates. There aren't, and if someone could prove me wrong, go for it. Find me 3 the equivalent of these for Jeb Bush or another candidate.

Friday, July 31, 2015

NYT Bush beat writer smooching Bush, *mwah*, as usual

Hey, remember when writers were supposed to a tiny little bit unbiased. Well, if you've read this, you remember a very special loving piece about Jeb Bush, written by NYT Mike Barbaro. I've also noted another Bush piece in the past, but until now I didn't realize it was the same writer, Mr. Barbaro. Of course! It's his beat-writer.

Fast forward to today, someone posted a NYT snip on Twitter noting the Bambi vs. Godzilla scene you see below as relates to 2 presidential candidates. Oh, and guess who NYT portrayed as Godzilla. Surprise!

Seems Mike Barbaro can absolutely not help himself. Funnily enough, regarding the event being "covered", speeches at The Urban League (here's normal coverage of it), the spin from Jeb's communications director was the exact same as the NYT piece, "Hillary is mean to Jeb", echoing something Jeb said the other day ("Hillary almost took my head off"), and just made it an all around bad thing, he wanted it to be high minded! It's almost like Mike Barbaro is saying exactly what the Jeb campaign is saying. Who'da thought.

Well this *would* be surprising if it were paper with any integrity, but, guess what...maybe not so much integrity after all. Seems Bush's communications director, Tim Miller and he don't just see each other during event coverage.

But no matter... Speaking of both giving the same report, Barbaro even quotes his friend Tim's Twitter feed.
On Twitter, Tim Miller, Mr. Bush’s communications director, called it a “Clintonesque move to pass over chance to unite in favor of a false cheap shot.”
NYT hates not to get words like "Clintonesque" in there. Fortunately they can just quote other people doing it. High five, bro!

This guy can in no way be impartial to Jeb Bush. Compare any of his articles to Amy Choznic's on Hillary Clinton. It is night and day. HRC is called every name in the book, picked on, concern-trolled, you name it, and Jeb is just all around you can't even believe how wonderful. And if anyone says otherwise, well, they must just be stomping all over said wonderful man.

Even conservative group Newsbusters came out with a piece noting Mike Barbaro's affection for the GOP candidate.
New York Times reporter Michael Barbaro issued a gushing profile Sunday of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida, possible presidential contender, and, apparently, the smart Bush...Barbaro is so flattering you'd think he was writing about a Democrat.
Newsbusters was a little confused and attributed the Jeb Bush "flattery" as a ruse to put down W., but those of us who've read the paper from the dem side know that is not the case. Here's what Newsbusters pointed out in May. Try not to puke over the unprofessional display of man-bro-love in a supposed to be legitimate newspaper:

NYT, folks.

Friday, July 24, 2015

The NYT publishes "criminal inquiry" after they know it wasn't true.

The NYT seriously botched a story, well, basically made one up. First they wrote a story that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe. Blasted it out to millions via email on the Thursday, then quietly removed that claim early Friday morning (without noting the changes). The new story was that there was a "criminal inquiry" related to Hillary Clinton's emails. Turns out that was also false, but according to Dean Banquet, it's because their "sources got it wrong" (that being the 2nd story, no one knows where first one came from and Dean's not talking). But after the NYT found out that there was no "criminal inquiry" at all they continued to publish repeatedly that there was.

It's not just a case of waiting too long to remove, they published it at least 3x after they knew that wasn't the case.  

The story of the NYT July 23rd faulty reporting is indeed extensive, as nothing in their story was correct, but this post is proof that there's more to it than a rush to judgement. Proof of NYT purposefully telling a significant untruth. This was not a mistake, or a rush to scoop, it was publishing a falsehood.

By 9:24am Friday morning it was confirmed by DOJ and other sources that there was "no criminal inquiry" but NYT made the decision at some point that the claim would stay in and they left it in both the lead and the title. In fact, they didn't just not remove it, they republished it. Here's what happened:

-DOJ announces by 9:24am that there is no criminal inquiry
-NYT Republished the "criminal inquiry" falsehood at 10:51am.
-An editor admitted at 12:12pm in a tweet they knew it wasn't a criminal inquiry.
-Republished the falsehood at 2:54pm
-7 hours goes by, they still do not remove it. By this time all major news organizations have removed it, a number of them also tweeting, that there is no criminal inquiry
-Republished the falsehood at 10:05pm.
Update: -Finally removed Saturday morning at what looks to be 9:29am

Which means the NYT knowingly published false information tying a leading presidential candidate to a criminal investigation multiple times over a course a number of hours AFTER knowing it was not the case. Indeed, they lied.

In fact, the writer of the story, Michael Schmidt, who I've written about before, was a guest caller on Hardball Friday late afternoon and did not correct it then even after the host asked him multiple why is it criminal. The host knew because anyone who read the story could see it made no sense.

So why would a newspaper lie about a presidential candidate and try to link it to something criminal when they were already under scrutiny and knew it wasn't at all the case.

NYT let it stay over night and finally removed "criminal inquiry" 9:29am Saturday, 7/25. Also removed were 100's of previously approved and published comments. Those are now at zero and closed.

Here is the change log showing multiple edits were made in the lead but criminal enquiry left in and republished. This isn't by accident.

So just in case you were thinking: The NYT can't lose a scoop, there aren't enough editors, a source burned them.... none of those explain the above. None. The NYT purposely published a known falsehood in their article tying Hillary Clinton to a non-existent "criminal inquiry" for a full day after knowing the truth.

And guess who did it. Hint, a story botched this badly means that higher up hands are on deck. Highest ranking person "directly involved with the story" according to NYT public editor Margaret Sulliview, is Executive Editor, Dean Baquet.

And by the way, what *was* the real story? After 2 days, a total replacement of the first hideous article, 10 edits and 2 written corrections of the replacement article, it boils down to this: 2 agencies arguing over what is classified and whether the State dept is releasing sensitive into when releasing Hillary Clinton's emails to the public.
"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday."
That's it. That only after multiple political talk shows and many online media outlets wrongly relayed that Hillary Clinton and/or her handling of her emails, were the target a criminal investigation.

Like I said, there are other serious issues with the article(s) that were noticed almost immediately after their first publish of the original article up to even the last article and can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and other places.

As I was saying, the "emails" writer at NYT has an agenda, now everyone can see it...

Today the email writing falsely indicated government officials were investigating Hillary in a crime probe. Well, that was a lie. But it's par for the course for the NYT.

My last post I showed a few of the tweets written by the NYT "emails" writer showing how clear his agenda is to make Clinton guilty of some type of wrong-doing. Any type would satisfy him so he keeps it up from all angles...

So yesterday, after a week of Trump mania keeps he and his cohorts from space to write nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and after one poll showing not good things for Clinton, time to get to work...writing fiction and pretending it's journalism. Yellow, yellow, yellow.

Here are Politico and Daily KOs catch the NYT being, as usual, shady.

NYT alters Clinton story without correction - Dylan Byers

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."


NYT dramatically re-writes Hillary Clinton email after midnight - David Nir

David Nir points out the 2 different versions. The first story:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
and the re-write:
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
And notes thusly:
In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that's transformed into an incredibly vague construction: "mishandled in connection with." What does "in connection with" even mean? It could mean almost anything. What's more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader. 

Perhaps it is the NYT that needs to be investigated.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

NYT email writer pushing the negative narrative...frequently and openly

 The NYT email story writer, who gets lots of clicks for the NYT and also now more airtime on TV has a vested interest in the email story looking sinister, but tell me how this story pushing is ethical journalism. And if you can put DUN DUN DUN! after every tweet, probably someone is pushing some bullshit.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

NYT *hearts* Bush.

You will never see an article like this in the NYT about Hillary Clinton... But for Jeb Bush, this is not rare. 

"A Candidate at Last, Jeb Bush Bounces Into New Hampshire"

Hillary's was:
a "prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the White House will reach its suspenseless conclusion"
NYT re: Jeb Bush
"disarmingly playful and noticeably relaxed, quick to joke and eager to connect".
NYT re: Hillary Clinton
 "trying awfully hard to be down w/ the in crowd"
But lets see more. NYT re: Bush. No, really, here are a few sentences in the article:

-Mr. Bush’s wry response: “Well, I’m glad you got a job.” The audience erupted into laughter and applause.

-Before she had even asked her question, Mr. Bush walked over and gave her a firm hug. 

-There were, of course, a few beginner’s mistakes.

-Appearing at ease and nimble as he engaged with them.

-A cerebral policy maven, Mr. Bush has often seemed more at ease dissecting data with think-tank scholars than fielding oddball queries from voters, 

-Mr. Bush who, with time, could hold his own against his party’s most talented talkers

-Mr. Bush wielded his dry humor over and over on Tuesday

-He gave a long, emotional hug to a woman who told of her decades-long struggle with mental disabilities.

Certainly a far cry from "wax figure", "freak" "queen" . But not unlike other articles they've written about Jeb Bush during this election.

NYT writes yet another post on the Clinton's vacationing in the Hamptons...

[NYT Narrative: Rich, elitist, and little more than a politician]:

Here Amy Choznic is instructed by the NYT to write an 2,000 word article on the Clinton's vacation and how it contrasts with her populist stances.

First 3 paragraphs:

For the past several summers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done what New York City’s moneyed residents have done for decades: They spent their vacation amid the prime beachside real estate of Long Island.
In 2011 and 2012, there was the eight-bedroom, 12,000-square-foot East Hampton rental with a heated pool that the couple took for part of August, the kind of house that typically goes for $200,000 per month, according to local real estate listings.
Then, in 2013, they opted for an equally pricey six-bedroom mansion in Sagaponack with a private pathway to the beach. (Mrs. Clinton worked on her memoir, “Hard Choices,” from a sunny office with an ocean view.)

followed by...blah blah blah blah...she's a politician....blah blah. Same article they've written multiple times.

Bonus: The zillionth email article from the other day:
Mr. Blumenthal handed over the emails to the committee on Friday in response to a subpoena. Dozens had never been provided to the panel, raising questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton had complied with its requests.

“As some of you know, this has been an ongoing issue; I want the documents, not the drama,” Mr. Gowdy said.
This from the guy who sent 2 sheriffs to Blumenthal's house to deliver a subpoena to his wife, after he leaked Blumenthal emails to the NYT. Needless to say that never "raised questions" about the how political this effort by Gowdy is.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

NYT continues to scandalize Clinton Foundation.

Of course they do. [NYT Narrative: Bill Clinton and CGI are greedy and shady].
"In August 2013 the model Petra Nemcova rewrote an earlier invitation asking Bill Clinton to accept a lifetime achievement award from Ms. Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Fund charity. The first invitation was declined. In this one, she offered to share the proceeds of the gala with the Clinton Foundation, which has a budget 100 times bigger than her small charity’s. 
Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation, equal to almost a quarter of the gala’s net proceeds"

So just to be clear, Petra gains money for her foundation by getting Bill Clinton to attend, and he gains money for his foundation by attending hers. NYT take away? CGI has 100x more money but takes a quarter of her fundraising. I guess Bill should just spend all his days raising money for other people's foundations and not his own? Or bad according to NYT.

Friday, May 22, 2015

NYT gets very upset that Hillary "ignores" the press, resorts to sexist name-calling...

NYT seems to be having a contest of who can write the most obnoxious, negative or accusatory articles about SOS Clinton. And what do you know that after Clinton doesn’t take press questions for 30 days one of them loses it and writes a bitter sexist essay about being ignored. He even bemoans that the grandchild gets attention while the press was not. Yikes.  And guess what. It's not even an op-ed. NYT, satisfied with the tone and merit of the piece, publishes it. Instead of keeping yet another creepy personal misogyny-filled attack out of a national newspaper the editors approve of them.

Is his first tweet linking his new article about Hillary Clinton a NYT writer posts:
"In Iowa, Queen Hillary and the Everyday Americans of the Round Table distribute alms to the clamoring press".
Amusingly, in his tweet above he's included the other people at the table as also not more generously fulfilling his needs and they too are now objects of his spite. Clearly someone is having trouble sorting out his emotions. So creepy. It's pretty sad that the NYT would publish a personal piece and call it a "political memo". 

And what an article. Maybe of the "journalistic" equivalent to keying a car or a child throwing a passive aggressive tantrum. The writer seems very very upset w/ HRC.  Oh boy. Angry little man... is angry. In his Hillary article the writer refers to Hillary Clinton in the following ways.

"the freak", "queen", 'wax figure', "regal bearing"

among other things.  

Even mocks her 'buying toys for her new grandchild', "...always the grandchild".  

Uh oh, someone is getting attention. Fortunately for the NYT no spite directed toward the 1 year old was published (or tweeted).

Of course he needs to continue to show off to his friends and end the story featuring, himself. oh yes, that's right.
Outside, by the steps of the bike shop, Mr. Henry did a stand-up in front of his Fox camera. “The reason she had a news conference is because I started shouting questions,” he crowed to his viewers. He called that the day’s “bottom line.” Small victories.
But the press had previously mentioned that she would be speaking to them, so the boast is undeniably unearned and is just wounded pride and puffery. Sorry boys, yelling at women doesn't work as well as you wish it would.

If there's anyone who still hasn't figured out how the NYT feels about women their "queen" piece should help clear that up. 

So what do you get when you cross a spoiled elitist child + misogynist @ misogynistic paper? All of the above. 

Update: Still bitter HRC isn't that into him and his mates, still bitter that she pays attention to her grandchild, he tweets this one day later from the NYT politics account. 
 "Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be trying awfully hard to be down with the in crowd".

Because speaking to people in the neighborhood her office is in (oops, HC is again giving attention to others) is trying to be down. Ok. And who the heck thinks of anything related to "in crowd", and who the hell would think it would be in Brooklyn. 

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

NYT makes no mention of aquisition of the SOS Clinton emails they published...

Not just not who, but no mention altogether. Hmmmm.

NYT gets a hold of 27 pages of unpublished emails between HRC and other government officials and from Sidney Blumenthal, all Blumenthal related, and publishes them online. This moments before the Benghazi Committee subpoenas S. Blumenthal. Coincidence? Beyond unlikely.

Oddly, the NYT makes no mention of anything related to acquisition. Only that they are "selected". Selected from what? (by whom?) and at one point refer to them as "obtained".

They make no mention of from where they came. No mention at all. Not only not who but also nothing even similar to "anonymous source", not "source we cannot disclose", etc. Nothing. They just skip it completely. Oops, just forget that part readers!

But what if there are readers that are curious. Did the source request be to kept anonymous? Is the sender unknown? Or did someone send it and had no desire to have their identity kept private but the NYT just opt not to add it? NYT completely skips it, which means it could be any of those answers but we have no idea. If someone wants to know anything about how they were acquired they will not find it in the paper that published them.

Why not?

Here are the 3 NYT pieces:

An odd but typical one that suggests there's something wrong with someone you've worked with sending you intel from a country of national interest to the U.S.

The summary of what was in the emails.

And the actual emails. This is the first time these have been published.

If the paper is under obligation not to disclose their source, why would they not reveal that obligation? Is it an error? Several people on Twitter have asked the writers why no mention, 1 responded to one of the commenters but without answering the question, nor was anything added later. So you can cross possible oversight off the list of possible explanations.

It's an understatement to say something's not quite right here.

Elijah Cummings, the leading democrat on the Select Benghazi Committee says it was Gowdy, head of GOP Benghazi committee, who sent them. Why does the NYT make no mention of anything related to aquisition what-so-ever? If Elijah Cummings is correct and it was Gowdy, then the NYT is protecting Trey Gowdy from current and future scrutiny of motive, helping him with his latest Benghazi charade. How does the release serve Gowdy? It makes it look like he has a reason to subpoena Blumenthal, but the fact is he's known about Blumenthal's emails for almost a year.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

NYT gets called out for their sloppy & yellow journalism w/ Schweizer story

Newsweek, NBC, ABC, Newsmax and others don't agree with the NYT insinuated charges. "Sloppy journalism" "doesn't hold up" "insinuates scandal where there is none" "peppering their story w/ innuendo for a juicy pay to play story". Way to go NYT.

Needless to say the story produced by the NYT on Schweizers "Clinton Cash" insinuation of wrong doing by SOS Clinton reads like every other piece they write on the Clintons, full of innuendo and insinuation, misleading facts and omitting others.

It took the NYT a few days after getting their goods from conservative activist, Peter Schwiezer, for them to print the Uranium/Clinton story, so at least they fact checked some of Schweizer's details before publishing his POV. But they failed to even find out how the approval process works, so basically, they just re-wrote Schweizer's story.

Did everyone agree with the NYT and Schweizer's insinuations that were very close to accusations? Fox, yes. The typical haters, yes.. lots of accusations to make (Morning Joe, Chuck Todd, the rest of the clowns). Occasionally adding their own random theories. But not everyone agreed:

Obviously camp Clinton disagrees: This excerpt from the debunk.
Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.
As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.

Newsweek pretty much captures it all:  [Schweizer's book] "reads like a hatched job", and speaks to the painfully poor logic of the entire book.
Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy. 

The other person NYT smears in the deal is Frank Guistra, long-time philanthropist, recipient of last year's first ever Dalai Lama humanitarian award. He had something to say too. He describes the NYT article as:
 "an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."
Very sad indeed.

Then Howard Dean calls out the NYT for the story, saying their political writers are "sloppy" and "substituting news for judgement". 

Even the NYT own Jack Krugman calls the NYT out.

Gene Lyons, who wrote about flawed NYT reports of Whitewater chimes in: Media Insinuates Scandal where there is None.

New Republic calls NYT out for "peppering their story w/ innuendo" for a "juicy pay to play story" (that amounts to yellow journalism but we already know that's how NYT rolls).

Hell, even NEWSMAX comes to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.

We know how the NYTimes reacts to obvious flaws in their Clinton reporting. They double down. Triple down and then some so I'm sure they'll have more nonsense to report shortly.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

A stroll down memory lane of the NYT printing very serious false accusations...

Just a reminder to folks who think the NYT doesn't mislead the American public for financial or political reasons, let's take a look into the past at only 4, starting with their hand in selling the Iraq war by scaring Americans into believing Bush's lies about Saddam Hussein.

1. Their false, incorrect, misleading stories that helped sell the Iraq war to the public with "verified" stories, (that they later admit were not verified) about stories about Saddam's quest for weapons. Well apparently they were just given wrong information, oops:
The problematic articles (oops) varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. -NYT
Oh, the informants had an agenda, (sorta like a recent source of recent article insinuating something sinister, story false) great sources then, anyone else have agenda? Based on the content of NYT articles featured in my blog and on others', I'd say it's hardly unusual for NYT to use their paper to push an agenda. But the NYT has an excuse for selling misinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapon aquisition, and it's also part of their regular method of operation; not taking the time to verify.
"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper". -NYT
Well that's interesting. Well surely after a mistake (?) that helped sell a war that killed 5,000 Americans and 200,000 Iraqis that would be sufficient enough to make sure the next time you insinuate or claim that a country in the Middle East has weapons of mass destruction you would double, triple, quadruple check. But that didn't happen, this did: (2) They pushed the exact same falsehoods regarding Syria/WMD.

And we know they love their Clinton hit-pieces that later turn out to be false, some of course setting off major consequences, like their (3) faulty Whitewater reporting and or (4) other bs that leads to investigations that last years. (I'll add this one in for good measure, pretty much the same insinuated charge as their recent story about Clintons and Uranium, but this debunked hit piece was in 2008)

Mistakes? The thing is, editors don't accidentally let reporters rush to report dictators that a U.S. president is on the verge of going to war, are ramping up seeking weapons. The NYT has an agenda and they have blood on their hands, a lot of it; You can be sure they have no problem pushing a Republican into the White House that will result in a stacked conservative SCOTUS that will impact 1,000's upon 1,000's of people's lives. Why they hate the Clintons and why they are so eager to put Jeb Bush into the White House isn't something I'm willing to speculate on, but don't forget that they don't care who is hurt, who will suffer or even how many will die as a result of whatever their agenda is.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

NYT randomly defends author of anti-Clinton book on Twitter.

So a few days ago NYT made an exclusive deal for material from anti-Clinton book. Media Matters called it out, as did a few others. Twitter got a little twittery, (barely, it was like me and 5 others, lol), and others and I called out that the NYT didn't divulge his anti-Clinton bias in their intro of him.

Media Matters make the first claim that Peter Schweizer has connections to the Kochs and before the NYT has even written an article on the book they made a pre-release exclusive deal to get, a NYT political editor tweets that the author isn't linked to Koch. (Quite a defense too! Um... ?)

Why is the NYT defending an author of a book? Either it's a defense of their deal with a right-wing political activist, or maybe they have a vested interest in people taking the author seriously, and if all is on the up and up then neither of those 2 things should be an issue, so why defend?

Here's the NYT defending the interwebs accusation of the author of the latest anti-Clinton conspiracy book:

Well then, I guess the NYT writer speaks at Citibank events and says to never let up on their adversaries.. something like that, weird analogy in the first place.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Morning Joe: 'Clinton Cash' writer's anti-Clinton connections were not divulged

Morning Joe is correct. In fact, in the NYT recent write up there is little noted as to who this author is and what his writings or history are.

Morning Joe notes on his show: @ 8:01 "If in fact [Schweitzer] has any connection to Ted Cruz's super pac or with other organizations that are overtly anti-Clinton, that should be in any introductory piece, and it certainly wasn't in any report that I saw".

Let's check: Not in the NYT, that's for sure! Not in any of the over 20 paragraphs written by Amy Choznik

Here is NYT introduction of the writer:
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
That's it. They barely even mention his political leanings.

The only mention of his being possibly biased is couched in a paragraph about a pro-Democrat super PAC trying to "make the case that he has a bias" in the 9th paragraph.
Conservative super PACs plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a "pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speech writing consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website** to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton."
*Does* the author has a bias? Let's take a look:

Media Matters says
Peter Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative group with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch: 
But even a quick look at Wiki will tell you all you need to know: The Author, Peter Schweizer, who is the President of GAI, "The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative investigative research organization" -Wiki

**Also, according the NYT, Schweizer "has contributed to Breitbart",  but according to Schweizer's facebook posts, he is currently a Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Larg.

And they omit completely that he is President of a conservative investigative research organization. 

Monday, April 20, 2015

NYT makes a deal for opposition research directly from conservative hit-piece writer...

Politico: Fox and NYT Makes Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt

Here's the round up so far (and it's only been a day since one of their writers tweeted about their oppo research deal with the conservative hit piece author.

Not affectionate toward HRC, Daily KOS reports: NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

Very unfond of Hillary Clinton, liberal blog 'Crooks and Liars', says, No matter what you think of her, this is something larger

Politico reports: NYT/FOX make a deal for anti-Clinton research

National Memo reports: Murdoch Empire colludes with "liberal media" to promote "Clinton Cash"

NYT Responds on Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt, with an odd single sentence statement.

Esquire magazine weighs in: The day political journalism died and the people killed it

MediaMatters runs down who the author actually is, and what he does...and puts together a list of *some* of Schweizers lies and inaccuracies (smears).

Salon reports: The right's new expose just went mainstream, NYT got hooked

But would the NYT really spread serious allegations that are totally false. Yes. And its pretty bad. Here's a recent notable one. 


NYT pushed lies about chemical weapons in Syria for which there was no proof.


But more often they leave out information in order to insinuate or draw improper conclusions:


Here's a good example: Issa sent a letter directly to Hillary asking about her email and she ignored it!  


Orrrr, Issa sent a broader letter to 18 agencies and didn't hear back from Clinton. Which do you think the times wrote and which do you think is true. Well, NYT Clinton writers don't look at the big picture, only what looks juicy.


Nothing new, tons of similar garbage in March in their very busy month, got called out back then as well:

But surely these are professionals. Yeah, no, they're not.


And it's always good for business when they can write right-wing hit pieces on the Clintons... here's one of the NYT hit-piece writers bragging that he got on drudge (with his story that proved false)


Today on the campaign trail in fact, someone asked SOS Clinton about the book, after answering Clinton then noted Republicans are all about her and not the issues. She was then mocked by NYT writter Maggie H. But it turns out, it Maggie's own paper came to the same conclusion that Hillary had. Top of the imagine, the NYT 2 days ago. Bottom half of image, NYT Maggie twittering derisively about SOS Clinton.



Wednesday, April 15, 2015

A Negative Narrative in Every Story...

It's not a NYT story about Hillary Clinton unless there are cherry-picked negative statements about her. Let's take a look.

[NYT Narrative: Hillary Clinton is not genuine (oh, and her whole IA trip is just staged)]:

It's a very common NYT vs. Hillary Clinton tactic to find negative statements about her from others and only include those while not including any other types of statements. And here they go again.  These are from the last 7 paragraphs of the story. There are 4 statements by people in the whole article and these are them. And judging by the statements, something else isn't quite right either.
Iowans seemed to appreciate the attention, but also to recognize its artificiality. “I’m guessing this was a campaign manager advising her to do this, said Corey Jones, a 17-year-old student in the small audience allowed in to watch Mrs. Clinton’s round-table discussion. It doesn’t seem like it was her idea.

Keith Stamp, a member of the college’s board of directors, said he was grateful that Mrs. Clinton had chosen their community for her first stop. “We know some of this is staged, but it’s about as good as it’s going to get when you’re running for president,” he said.

“She’s going back and fixing her mistake,” said Hallie Corum, 17, a high school student. “I don’t think it’s very genuine. It’s not open-forum. It’s all scripted.”
Others just wanted a chance to get to know the real Mrs. Clinton. Brianna Langdon, 20, who was chosen to participate in the round table, said her only real impression of Mrs. Clinton came from “Saturday Night Live.”

“They portray her as all about herself,” Ms. Langdon said, “so I’m hoping today to see that she’s not.

That last line "I hope she's not" is the NYT equivalent of concern trolling. They do it often. 'Something could be negative... but we hope not!' Concern trolling.

Like I said, I only write on a fraction of NYT articles, 5% at most, but I don't have to look for ones like this...they're ALL like this. Articles and stories about her competitors, however, are nothing like this.

More than a few people call them out in the comments. One made me smile:

"Another article in this paper says 'Hillary is trying to look normal...Where's the public editor? These both are supposed to be news articles, instead they are editorials. You New York Times folk better up your game, otherwise you'll go the way of Drudge. NO candidate should be subject to news articles like this. Save the opinions for the editorial page, where candidates are fair game."

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

NYT Robert Reich insinuates Hillary would "run on being the first woman" as a platform

Yes folks, that's right. We have a real pig on our hands by the name of Robert Reich.

He's not the only one, Fox did it as well. It's a little mini campaign meant to disparage SOS Clinton, obviously trying to make it seem like she's running on gender and nothing else, and worst of all, to pre-shame women who are excited about voting for a woman. This is one of the ugliest Hillary-detractor strategies I've seen, but I knew it was coming. Haters have *got* to know, once women get into Hillary, there's not much chance of getting them back, so this will be a theme that goes on for a long time and it will get worse.

As for this particular post, let's keep in mind, this is right after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy and in a 2 minute video never mentioned being a woman, fighting for women or anything related to gender. Not once.

Let's take a look at R.Reichts' disgusting post on Facebook. This, folks, is the definition of asshat:

"A presidential candidate cannot run on being the first woman to be president, because that is not a platform. It does not tell the nation what she will do to respond to the nation’s needs. It also contradicts the underlying premise that a woman can do the job quite as well as a man and therefore gender should not matter. If gender should not matter, then, logically, a campaign cannot be based on gender. Hillary Clinton must make the case for why she should be president based on where she wants to lead the nation, and why, just as any man running for president must do. And that case must be made starting from the moment she declares her candidacy."

Fortunately many people were not stupid enough to fall for it and read his ass in the comments. This ugly shit should not be tolerated. When you see it, push back, call it out, twitter it, put it on your facebook and let people know exactly what it is;

Some great comments in response were:

-"I think a man wrote this"

-"I didn't see anything in Hillary's video that even hinted at "vote for me because I'm a woman."

-"As a platform no. But she can acknowledge her uniqueness."

-"I can say for certain that you are losing your mind if you think 'being a woman' is her platform, that in itself is sexist and pisses me off"

-"We want a president that gives a shit about the women. Male privilege needs to end."

-"The only people saying she's running solely on a "platform" of being female are her opponents". (Got that right)

-"Perhaps it's the men who have not paid attention to what she has been saying ".

-"I think your assumption that her race will be based on gender is mean-spirited and destructive".

-"Maybe you should shut up and listen to her".

-"I think you are full of shit. And rancor. And regardless of what you think, I want a woman president in my lifetime and you and the men on the right can kiss my ass! I had enough of this shit in 2008"

-"But it is still time for a woman president. And if people voting for her do so JUST because she is a woman? As long as she keeps the likes of Ted Cruz away from the presidency, that's all right with me..." 

-"OF COURSE she is going to run on an electable political platform. To imply otherwise is ludicrous and offensive. But damn right: We're going to elect our first woman president!" (<- uh oh, watch out RR and odious company, women are already excited to vote for her, and once they do, they're not going back)

(and of course there were many angry republicans posing as liberals 1%%%%!!!!, lol)