Sunday, March 29, 2015

March round-up, *some* of NYT anti-Hilary Clinton negative narratives and stories.... and media pushback

I only covered 7 pieces of the NYT anti-Clinton offensive, and Media Matters also only covered a handful of the HRC articles in the NYT, and there are no overlap in story coverage, so just you can see what a busy month March has been for NYT smears against Hillary Clinton, here's a mini round-up.

This only counts *some* of their *dozens* email stories, and does not include *all* of their negative articles about Hillary Clinton, this is ONE month

At very least 12 egregiously false, misleading, biased and/or negative stories regarding Hilary Clinton, most with typical anti-Hillary talking points, all lacking journalistic integrity, and these are only they ones I and Media Matters have WRITTEN about.  

Media Matters:

1. Original flawed, misleading, deceptive Email non-scandal scandal story
2. Followup story, doubling down on misinformation after being called out
3. NYT pushes evidence-free speculation about Hillary's emails and classified information
5. NYT uses GOP talking points to call into question Hillary's advocacy for women and girls

NYT Narratives (this site):

1. Negative Narrative - Random and bizarre story pushing the idea that Clintons are all about their inner circle
2. Planting doubt about HRC's committment to childhood education
3. Bizarre framing of exoneration proof as proving guilt
4. NYT writes that HRC witholds what should be part of history, her own personal emails are owed to people
5. NYT declares Hillary Clinton is "not relatable", and that even the idea of it is laughable.
6. NYT delivers full and loaded anti Clinton talking points from anti-Hillary super pac! 
7. NYT insults Bill Clinton, including his looks, for no reason
8. NYT delivers more negative memes out of absolutely nowhere. (not counting this in my 12)

I have not included other bits I've noticed bits of narrative language I've seen in other pieces, I have a full time job and I would have to quit to write them all.

Also notable: NYT email writer takes to Twitter to declare a narrative change after his original story proved false.

While on the topic, let's not forget their double standard:
-NYT Double standard on Jeb's emails- Media Matters
-Double standards -Media Matters
-Who's missing - Media Matters
-But hey, are least her competition is teh awsum.

No fewer than 8 outlets weigh in on NYT coverage of Clinton, cuz it's that bad:
Greta Van Susteren: calls it "sloppy" "gossip", poor journalism.
and 7 other outlets call NYT out for their faux coverage drama regarding the email non-scandal scandal.

Bonus: Great piece by Peter Daou on the media's obsessive Hillary-hate

And can't not add this gem from the NYT defense of their disgusting bias toward and corrisponding coverage of Hillary Clinton; no, really, they wrote this: "Bulletproof Clinton Reporting". To be fair, the writer of this piece, Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, has in the past called the NYT out for this ridiculous cover of Hillary Clinton.

 Even those who were gross toward her themselves notice and call it out

NYT 'email scandal' writer declares a narrative change, posts it to Twitter followers..

 From writer M. Schmidt's Twitter on March 10th after "broke rules" story proved false, twice.

Here's what happened. Earlier this month a NYT writer wrote a story titled: 'Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules'.

Turns out the rule that didn't exist during her tenure.

So then they said, well, we think there's another rule she broke.

That turned out also not to be true.

So what's a writer to do who wrote one of the biggest non-scandal scandals in a decade? Change the narrative to keep the story going.

And that's exactly what he did. He posted this on twitter after it became obvious the original story was a non-story. Not even subtle:

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Mrs. Clinton rightfully deletes her own personal emails, as per State Dept instructions...

This weekend media (NYT/CNN/etc) are screaming that Hillary deleted her emails, even though  weeks ago she had already declared she did not preserve them. So really the NYT and CNN are not delivering any news about the actual emails but rather relaying witch hunt leader drama.

The new drama is that Hillary Clinton's lawyer sent a letter to Gowdy telling him, basically, 'we already told you no, you can't have her personal emails or personal server, and we already told you we followed the correct process'. Gowdy threw a tantrum for the media knowing they would print his drama, which they did. They even spread his "wiping her server clean" line in several news outlets.

But just in case anyone is curious, here's why it's not a *real* issue that she did not preserve the rest and how you can tell it's sensationalist trash from the media and a witch hunt by the GOP that are quite fortunate to have the NYT, et al gleefully giving them everything they need to keep it up.

Here are the instructions SOS Clinton was to use as to how to archive her emails. It is, as also stated in the instructions, the same procedure for paper filing. As in you don't archive your doodles and your personal notes. You file things of record. So it's like having a headline "HILLARY THREW OUT HER DOODLES AND LAUNDRY LISTS"

Sensationalist media 'ZOMG, SHE DELETED OFF THE SERVER!' But folks, those are the instructions below.

The personal emails and server not being handed over is only an issue for 2 entities. The GOP, which knows they will be running against her in 2016, and the NYT.

Why would a newspaper omit information about the very thing they reported? Here's why:

After the writer of most of the emails stories in the NYT had to clarify that his original story didn't hold water, he had to change the narrative, and it conflicts with the above information. (this is from his personal Twitter account).

NYT delivers full talking points from anti-Hillary super pac

NYT parrots right wing talking point from anti-democrat super pac 'America Rising'...

What more could an anti-Hillary super pac want. Someone delivering their message for free to over a million people in what most people consider to be an honest news source. They struck gold with the NYT.

The NYT all month has been spreading rumors, baseless accusation, and doubling down on deceptive stories, but they times they go even farther. This writer, who's original email piece was debunked, delivers the talking points from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising.

[Anti-Clinton memes: Calculating, secrecy]

NYT delivers full anti-hillary pac talking points here...

Like many of the anti-Clinton GOP meme words written through their articles, the NYT slips them in by finding quotes from others. This one he takes them directly from the super PAC America Rising. From the NYT, March 3rd, 2015

Unfortunately, Clinton's own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of email accounts...   -Talking point from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising, delivered by the NYT 

There was NO reason a journalist would need to include their statement on "calucation" and "secrecy", that has nothing to do with journalism. If this was about a law suit they needed to delivery the information regarding the plaintiff, and that's it. The NYT is pushing these on purpose. Make no mistake about it. 

On their website the Superpac brags that they can change media narrative:
Our work influenced the 2014 elections. Bloomberg said we “rattled Democrats who were not used to losing the media’s story lines” in 2014.

We’re also looking forward to influencing the 2016 elections. The Washington Post and CNN have called America Rising the leading group on the right preparing for a Hillary Clinton candidacy and the earliest sustained effort to begin defining future Democratic presidential contenders. Follow our Hillary Clinton coverage here.
And the NYT is either falling for it or purposefully spreading their message in the hopes of influencing the 2016 elections, it's hard to believe it's not the latter.

Edit: Let's go back in time to NYT delivering other anti-Clinton group propoganda: Whitewater.

"The mainstream media (to which we mail ClintonWatch regularly) is now beginning to parrot much of the information and analysis we break."
-- ClintonWatch, November 1993

"Citizens United has been a powerful force behind the exposure of the biggest story to hit Washington D.C. since Watergate."
-- Citizens Agenda, February 1994

Friday, March 27, 2015

Greta Van Susteren calls out the NYT for "gossip" and sloppy journalism...

"Can’t the New York Times do better than this? This is what is wrong with journalism"

Greta on the gossipy tragedy that nyt is passing off as news.

This is what is wrong with journalism — American people are fed what amounts to as gossip and the NYT is happy to feed it. In the old days, journalists would have worked the stories longer (there is no rush to get this published) and harder and either the journalists would have seen the emails themselves or gotten us names of those who supposedly were telling the content.  And other journalists as they read this? Do they call the NYT out? nope, because for the most part this is so common no one sees it as a problem and / or they do it themselves.  

- Greta Van Susteren

13 Words, Coded Sexism? or What....

Looks like quite a few people are talking about pile-on of negative words toward SOS Clinton in the media. Quick clarification, more than 13 words were noted, NYT writer only posted 13.

Yesterday a Hillary Clinton supporter sent out some tweets to a NYT writer and a letter (citing Peter Daou's piece about anti-Clinton memes) to over 100 reporters that he was aware of a number of words that have been repeated ad nauseam in articles related to Hillary Clinton in a way that we haven't seen of other candidates. And lo and behold.. DRAMA LAMA DING DONG!!! Lol. Fox, Rush, all conservative blogs, even ABC. I couldn't believe someone called out all those words! Was fantastic to hear and see everywhere...

After the supporter sent the letter a NYT writer then tweeted about the letter, described as being done "derisively" by Peter Daou, highlighting some of the words:

polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident, secretive and "will do anything to win", "represents the past", "out of touch"…

Turns out there words including some of the more obvious sexist ones like "petulant", "musty", but those were not tweeted out by the NYT writer.

The NYT writer tweeted out those 13 words were called "coded sexism" by the supporter and the text that the supporter would be "watching" for them. And that is why the heyday ensued, conservative blogs mockingly suggesting this was about word policing.

I have to admit I had to pause because most of the words tweeted didn't specifically jump out at me as sexist (although sexism and sexist are different). I had to really go through the words to see what was sexist about them even though I am well-aware of the double standard usage of them for Clinton and no one else with such frequency and diligence. But the one that struck me the most was "ambitious". Aren't all political candidates in national politics? And then I was brought back to the very first time I heard Hillary Rodham Clinton's name. "Baking cookies". Do we all remember what question she was asked?

"Why did you decide to have a career?"

You would have to be some kind of nut to not realize how sexist that is.

Basically, why did you have ambition that men should have. (Although they were practically asking her why she even left the house, wtf).

Insincere also strikes me a little. First of all, I do personally find her sincere but that's because I watch her wonkiness and her serious moments, to me there is no insincerity there. But secondly, whatever others are seeing, she's a politician, so I don't know what planet of sincere politicians these media writers must be on for her to be the exception.

Maybe "entitled" too. Sorta feeds into that idea of someone being haughty. Never heard that word about another politician. It's weird, hard to tell after a while are these words because she's Hillary Clinton or because she's a woman. maybe using belittling language that's easier to use against a woman that they're happy to use because that woman happens to be Hillary Clinton. 

Do I think *all* the words are coded sexism, no, but that's not what Daou's piece even implies, it implies that SOME of the words are sexist, and some are just anti-Clinton memes regularly being pushed by the media. And I agree. But the fact is, things like "musty smelling" and NYT drawing her as a dead witch, is sexist and misogynist.

ANYONE who lived through 2008 saw the sexist vitriol. Even Fox news anchor Kurtz mentioned it while talking about the "13 words". And *if* some of the current negative focus is on her because of some seething resentment that a woman this "ambitious" cannot be taken down, then maybe all those pile-on negative words have more to do with gender than is easily seen at face value. And the more I read through articles, the more the language would seem unnatural if said toward a male politician. Honestly, I don't know and I would probably need to see some scholar break it down for me for me to see more of it. But make no mistake about it, I've seen plenty of sexist stuff been written about SOS Clinton, ranging from blatantly sexist to things about Hillary Clinton that you just wouldn't write about a man.

But I do know for sure, as you can tell by the title of my blog, they are loaded, negative narrative words that the NYT and others consistently pepper through their stories when writing or talking about Hillary Clinton. And sexism or not, that's not journalism, it's biased, ugly, narrative pushing. You see in my articles I often include which "bonus anti-clinton meme words" are in the articles right below them, and they are similar to the words mentioned by Peter daou and John West.

As for "watching you", I certainly hope so. I hope that people keep their eyes peeled for this type of narrative shaping and meme pushing. It's why I started writing this blog. I hope people keep their eyes and ears open, look for all those words (and others). Are they conveniently in opinion columns? Are they couched in "others have said" (give me a break). Because once you learn to read narrative, you'll never be able to undo that, and you'll know the difference between fact and opinion.

I also tweeted the NYT writer. Mine she didn't share. I respectfully said I found them to be more about narrative than sexism.

And whatever we attribute the words to, clearly he, I and others find the endless littering of these words in news articles about a former Flotus, former State Senator, Former Secretary of State unacceptable. Good on ya Mr. West.

Update: Wapo writer, Aaron Blake, weighed in and makes a few points I have to share:

"Calculating" is almost completely something used to attack Clinton or describe the attacks on her. The same goes for "disingenuous," "insincere," "entitled," "secretive," "over-confident," "represents the past" and "out of touch." These are all loaded words  and not terms used casually by mainstream media journalists like Chozick to describe a politician.
 Thank you sir for noticing !!! that these words ARE used for her!! But the point where he's wrong is that mainstream "journalists" don't use them. They do.
The same cannot be said for some other words. "Polarizing" is a word that has long followed Clinton, as has "ambitious," and "inevitable."
And some of these words should indeed be reined in -- if not necessarily for the reason this group wants.
Hear that, narrative pushers? Reign them in, they're not journalism.

And while we're at it, go ahead and retire "inevitable," too. We've been talking about it for a while, sure, but it's probably been overdone (not too mention it aims to predict the future). Now it's all about whether Clinton gets any capable primary opponents. Until then, call her a huge favorite and leave it at that.

HALLALUJAH. Will anyone listen? Doubt it, but A-freakin-Men.

Thank you, Mr. West.

By contrast, NYT on Bush and others...

I was just reading through some of NYT articles about Jeb Bush written in March (very few of them have been written so far) and want to share some of the language used and things they find notable about possible contenders:

This is from one of about 4 articles that have been written about Jeb Bush in the last 3 weeks, all quite lovely I assure you, there were over a dozen of SOS Clinton, none of which shared any resemblance to this in any way, shape or form.

Jeb Bush vast plot to win Florida
NYT Narrative: Rubio young and charismatic, Jeb's just all around awesome (last week Ted Cruz was "brilliant").

...seeks to try to neutralize two potentially grave but homegrown threats to Mr. Bush’s long-anticipated run for president: the likely challenge from a charismatic young Republican senator from Miami, Marco Rubio, He suggested that Mr. Rubio remain in the Senate, calling him “a young man that has a lot of potential.”
Mr. Bush’s muscular outreach in Florida — where actions like a tribute to an aide at his deathbed and staff reunions at Disney World have won the admiration of Republican leaders — is relying on a highly personal touch and the tug of loyalty to a man who ushered in what has been a 17-year stretch of Republican state government.
“Jeb has taken the trouble to nurture these relationships,” said John McKager Stipanovich, a prominent Republican lobbyist in Tallahassee who receives a personal message from Mr. Bush every Nov. 26. “They don’t even need to reach out in Florida. They never let go.”
Several fondly recalled the latest reunion Mr. Bush held at Disney World, attended by hundreds of former staff members and their families, who lined up for photographs with him and roasted him onstage. And they spoke with admiration about his recent visit to the home of an ailing former aide and state lawmaker, Ken Plante, just days before he died.
In interviews, a dozen current and former Florida lawmakers embraced Mr. Bush’s likely candidacy, citing his record of cutting taxes and spending as governor.

See the difference yet? The article before this he was "masterful", etc.

What I can tell you for sure, is that no one yet has asked him why he didn't keep *his* 10's of thousands of personal emails that were on *his* personal server running *his* personal domain to do *his* official business. I wonder if the NYT would pontificate that he deleted them due to being a polarizing person.

NYT: Hillary Unrelatable...

A man at the NYT has decided that Hillary Clinton is unrelateable to OTHER people and NYT made sure to include a whole piece on it. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile:

But Mr. Mansplainer at the NYT doesn't like her that much so he's gonna write an article that others don't either and that they can't relate to her and then he's gonna 'splain you why. The writer said he was inspired by something positive posted about SOS Clinton, immediately he found it funny hearing something positive about her and proceeds to write a negative piece. Sounds about par for the course there at the NYT lately.

Eternal Quest for Relatability - Mike Leibovich, 3/20/15. I must have missed their article on Senator Cruz trying to appear sane but what can you do.

NYT Narrative: Hillary is not relatable, and she and her supporters are a joke.
[Bonus NYT narrative words about Hillary Clinton: "Calculating" "Clinton fatigue" "Cackle"]

The author  Mark Leibovich starts off mocking anyone who likes her, and brands her supporter negatively immediately and then "chuckles" at the idea of her being relatable...
Paul Begala, the Clinton partisan and part-of-the-furniture pundit, had tweeted a link to a U.S. News and World Report article that described Hillary Clinton as “relaxed, warm, funny and relatable” in a speech she gave in Atlantic City. I immediately recognized “relatable” as the Clinton trope that it is. I chuckled to myself and retweeted Begala with an emphasis on “relatable.”
Gotta get those narrative words in, make sure readers never forget to associate all negative words with her by putting them into articles multiple times a week, and then the writer says that "she's not" relatable and that she is too calculated.
Now comes “relatable,” which Clinton owns in a big way — as in, she’s not. Too rich, too famous, too calculated. If she did not own this “relatable” stamp before, she does now
And by the way, how does calculated fit into relatability? Doesn't, does it.

Also got to get in a favorite negative description for a Hillary laugh:
Late in the “S.N.L.” skit, McKinnon’s Clinton showed a sonogram of her fetal self hoisting a “Hillary 2008” sign in her mother’s womb. She cackled and added, for good measure, “what a relatable laugh!” It was a gratuitous and perfect touch;
Gratuitous indeed. The NYT writes articles and pieces with a negative narrative about Hillary Clinton on a regular basis regardless of actual reality.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

NYT Mar. '15; Clinton Narratives gone weird....

NYT narrative: Hillary victimizes intellectuals, owes them her personal emails - Scott Shane 3/12
[bonus NYT narrative words include: Monica, Polarizing figure, Richard Nixon]

Creepy, weird and obnoxious pretty much describes this NYT narrative and story... they're saying because historians didn't randomly get all her personal emails written that she is somehow taking something away from them.

Keep in mind, here is the process by which SOS Clinton was to archive her emails, there are instructions that she was to use. In a nut shell they are: Hand over work related materials only and not personal ones.

But by the way Times writes the story, they omit that part and act as if she was supposed to turn them over, and now the historians don't have them.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed that she had destroyed more than 30,000 emails about personal matters during her tenure as secretary of state, it was painful for historians and biographers. Some imagined themselves or their successors in 20 or 50 years prowling the archives with little success for the most intimate, revealing raw material.
Now, if these are Hillary Clinton's personal emails, how is that a loss to historians if they were hers never to be divulged. Because she kept them in the same place as her work emails? The way the archival process goes is, you archive work related matters and not personal. That is right out of the manual. So it's not a loss to historians because they would never have gotten her personal emails anyway. That's the weird part.

Creepy. Are they lamenting that they won't get hands on her personal emails? They wouldn't have gotten them anyway. ?? I know i just said that, under "weird", but this is both weird AND creepy. Oh speaking of creepy:
The lost Clinton emails, (??? They're HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) said Doris Goodwin might have helped fill in a vivid future portrait. (THEY'RE HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) “A government official is not just an official,” said Ms. Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and other figures. “They have marriages and children and rich private lives that are all mixed up with their public lives. As a biographer, that’s what you want.”
I find it almost hard to write about why this is so weird because it makes no sense. "I lament that i don't have a million dollars", okayyy, and? It's not mine, ?? so?

Her decision to delete the personal emails (why would she hand them over? they are her personal emails) may reflect her experience as a polarizing figure who lived through the searing experience of her husband’s very public sexual affair with a White House intern

When you personally delete your personal emails, is it because you are a "polarizing figure"? And what. the. f. does Monica Lewisky have to do with ANYTHING?? wtf?

Now, as a likely presidential candidate, she opted to delete the private emails out of concern that they could leak and be used to embarrass her or undermine her candidacy.
CREEPY ALERT: “If she becomes president, we would eventually want to have all the intimate details of her life before the presidency,” said Robert Dallek, a prominent presidential historian. “It’s all part of the historical record.”

We want to have all the intimate details of her life? It's all a part of the historical record? Dear reader, are you taking this in? Does this article now make any sense at all. The reason it is this crazy is because NYT makes up crazy s--t when they write about the Clintons (more so about Hillary than Bill actually).

THIS IS AN ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER who's byline is "all the news that's fit to print". Umm....

Wait, NYT isn't done until they call compare her to Nixon for not giving the government and the public her personal emails...
But Richard M. Nixon’s tangle with taping, in which incriminating recordings during the Watergate scandal helped end his presidency, has left his successors disinclined to record. “I doubt that we’ll find recordings from the recent presidents,” Mr. Dallek said. “That’s a shame.”
Here instructions were NOT to turn over her personal emails, her instructions by the State department were to turn over ONLY her work related materials.What the hell does that have to do with Nixon. Oh, NYT Clinton Narrative.

Narrative Pushing March '15 - Pretending exoneration proof proves guilt...

This one is bizarre, and awful at the same time. New information surfaces and proves that the drama story (HRC using her own email) is a non-issue ("regulations permitted") and now her method turns out has actually meant her emails were saved because .gov emails were NOT archived... but instead of using this new found information to add closure, they use it to pretend she was mistaken and now emails are lost. But in reality the article proves the opposite, because of her server, emails are saved. Sounds weird but look, it's true...

Michael Schmidt, 3/12/15. This story is one of the few stories about her in the last 20 days that has actual relevant information in it. They are:

1. There was not at any time in State Department (and other departments) history, archiving of emails. Not until a few months ago. Which means, if Hillary Clinton had used a government email address, her emails would have not been saved because there was no auto archiving.

State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officials’ emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.

So wait,  NO ONE'S EMAILS HAVE BEEN SAVED...except for a very few people, one of those people being Hillary Clinton.

So now the entire email story is moot because no one's emails were saved. Oh, except for the ones on Mrs. Clinton's server, which means she saved more emails than anyone else.

But the title says they may be lost... Makes no damn sense huh. Oh, NYT... Clinton story.. that's how it goes, makes no sense.

Read it. See if it makes any sense what so ever. I could go into the backwards logic of it, but honestly, when you read it, if it makes your brain hurt, that's backwards logic.

And the whole original drama was, ZOMG, SHE BROKE RULZ, SHE HAD OWN EMAIL SNEAKY...
Regulations issued by the National Archives in October 2009 said that agencies where employees were free to use private email systems “must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” (She did preserve them, and did turn them over. (But she did so late. 2 years late. Jeb Bush's were 7 years late, but Hillary sneaky. got it).
So now there is no rulz breaking, and using her own server ended up saving all her emails.

See, NYT wrote a flawed story and it got them a huge amount of attention. Now they have to keep the story going. So even though news came out that should make it clear it was better that she used her own server, they spin it into... i don't even know what to call it because it's so weird. An opposite story?

Now what's the email drama? None. But it's not over because it's all every media outlet can talk about it because the NYT is keeping the flames going, the writers even bragging on twitter that they're getting Drudge traffic. lol. And even worse, it is now being used in politics, the GOP has picked it up, they want to issue subpeonas, and are calling for third party investigators.... does this sound familiar to you? Well guess what. NYT wrote a similarly flawed Whitewater story. There you go.

Times Narrative Pushing Mar '15 - Planting doubt about Mrs. Clinton's dediction to childhood education

Narrative: Wall street triangulater may sell out the children:
[Bonus negative narrative words: Cozy with Wall Street, Triangulate]

I'm just using random articles from the last few weeks, if I did them all I'd have to write one article every day and I can't right now. But here's another easy to read negative narrative piece from the NYT about Hillary Clinton:

Here's a pretty disgusting one. Hillary has been championing for children her entire life. So the NYT is going to try to erode something in the mind of readers that she holds very close to her heart and that she is well-known to care about. *shudder*. This one actually hurt to read.

Hillary Clinton Caught Between Dueling Forces on Education: Teachers and Wealthy Donors

This is targeted at a specific audience: The far left of the democratic party for whom "Wall Street" are trigger words. This article is designed to plant apprehension about Hillary Clinton's dedication to childhood education. And by the way, she cares about children and their welfare a great deal, so if the conclusion is she would sell them out, that makes her the evil person the NYT would love everyone to believe. We'll get to how easy that works for them in a moment.
Already, she is being pulled in opposite directions on education. The pressure is from not only the teachers who supported her once and are widely expected to back her again, but also from a group of wealthy and influential Democratic financiers who staunchly support many of the same policies — charter schools and changes to teacher tenure and testing — that the teachers’ unions have resisted throughout President Obama’s two terms in office.

??? What? how is she being pulled? Did someone make a request? Where's the pressure? Did she have to make a choice somewhere? Nope. Nope. Nothing.
And the financiers say they want Mrs. Clinton to declare herself.“This is an issue that’s important to a lot of Democratic donors,” said John Petry, a hedge fund manager who was a founder of the Harlem Success Academy, a New York charter school. “Donors want to hear where she stands.”
"they want HC to declare" sorta makes it seem as if they're demanding that she speak now, but it's really much more passive when it comes from the mouth of the person they're referring to "donors want to hear where she stands".

And that's it for how she is "caught between". That's it. That's the entire article's premise and it comes down to some hedge fund guy who "was a founder" of a charter school says "donors want to hear where she stands". That's it. That's what the article is based on. And btw, which donors are those? Just... "donors"?

And now let's get down some information about our current president on the issue and how it relates to the future:
The growing pressure on education points out a deeper problem that Mrs. Clinton will have to contend with repeatedly, at least until the Iowa caucuses: On a number of divisive domestic issues that flared up during the Obama administration — trade pacts, regulation of Wall Street, tax policy — she will face dueling demands from centrists and the liberal base of the Democratic Party.
okay, fair enough, wait, where are the magic scary words? Oh, here they are:
Some progressives already view Mrs. Clinton as overly cozy with Wall Street. And should she align herself with the elite donors who favor an education overhaul, many of them heavyweights in the investment world, it could inflame the liberal Democratic base. [Hey guys, this is you! Get crazy!]
Meme: Clinton = Wall Street. And they continue to suggest her decision on childhood education is automatically political. Read even just her Wiki page started after graduating college and you'll see why it sucks to see them even dare go there.

Magic word alert, here it comes:
...but he said he was concerned: “She has had more longstanding ties to the teachers’ union, certainly, than Obama ever had. She’s thrown some bones to both sides and I think is sort of trying to triangulate on this.”
Ding ding ding. triangulate is an OLD meme related to Mr. Clinton (who does triangulate but you will very very very rarely see this word used toward anyone else other than the Clintons), this word comes up during election time only. And NYT has made sure to get it in regarding childhood education, smooth. And that's why I'm writing this, because it works but once you learn how to spot this junk, you'll see if for what it really is.

Other gems to push the narrative: Mrs. Clinton has plenty of time to maneuver before taking sides -NYT

It would have been impossible for the NYT to omit that Hillary Clinton has cred with educators.
Mrs. Clinton will at least not have to establish credibility on the subject. Her involvement with efforts to overhaul education dates back at least to the early 1980s, when her husband named [yeah, that's it folks, just stuff her husband named her as, fu nyt] her co-chairwoman of an Arkansas committee that called for a teacher-competency test, smaller classes and a higher dropout age. As a senator, she voted for No Child Left Behind in 2001, but later attacked the law, saying it was failing children.
DOH. Look at that, she voted for it, then attacked it. Any reason for that? *shrug*, musta just changed her mind maybe. As did Ted Kennedy and every other liberal who worked on the program.

I cannot, tell you, how thankful I am that they gave the education professional the final word. Because when the NYT is not speaking, and someone else is, it goes something like this:
But she rejected the idea that Mrs. Clinton would set policy based on anything other than “her experience and the evidence.” “She has been versed in these issues for a long time, and will give everyone a fair hearing and a fair shot, but she will look at it through the lens of what’s good for kids. Period,” Ms. Weingarten said. “Anybody who thinks otherwise just doesn’t know her.”


"If she continues to triangulate, wanting to please everybody and displease no one, with her ambition her only constant, she might get the nomination, but she will likely lose the Presidency; even to half-mad Republican candidates that might trump Mrs. Clinton in the authenticity department".

see that? Instantly the commenter parroted GOP meme words and proclaims her to be inauthentic.

This group is very easily fooled. 1, because even as a former reader, you believe the NYT. 2. They have been hearing this narrative for so long that when it is strung together in what seems like a real article it all seems to fit. Furthermore, progressives are so convinced they are geniuses that they are thoroughly convinced they're opinions come from actual information. Fail.

"I honestly wonder if there's any issue left on which she has an absolute, unmovable opinion".

"I think it's possible that she will come out with a position that's best for Hillary".

"Just another example of what Hillary stands for or not or maybe. Given her past performance--she will side with the wealthy donors. How sad for us progressives and even more so--how sad for the US.

ALERT: There was NO example. She did not make a choice. Nor can one of these people come up with a time that she sided with a wealthy donor.

See how easy it is to fool people? These comments were from the first comments, which means highest rated. I didn't have to go far to look for them. There are 100's that say the exact same thing.

SHE BETTER CHOOSE RIGHT!!! That apprehension delivered by the NYT.

But after all:
she prepares for a likely second run at the White House, Mrs. Clinton is re-entering the fray like a Rip Van Winkle for whom the terrain on education standards has shifted markedly, with deep new fissures in the Democratic Party.

NYT March '15; more narrative pushing

Sometimes NYT writes pieces that make no sense whatsoever, just to drop narrative, memes or whatever they're into that day. This article is a good example. (If you don't have an NYT subscription just use a private browser window in Firefox or Chrome and you can read as many articles as you want)

[NYT Narrative: overall shade, and as usual, they victimize people]

This story was printed one day after the flawed email story "broke". 

Um, folks, how would the NYT know how things have been remembered? Supposedly they just found out the other day she used her own email. Think about that. And it's not like they even pretend they spoke to someone.

Let's take a look. Here is ALL that is said regarding the title:
Chelsea Clinton was given one, but under a pseudonym, [and] Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s longtime aide and surrogate daughter, was also given a coveted address.
So her daughter has one of the emails and her first hand aide who is at her side literally 10-16 hours a day. That's 2 people. And now the "membership  to the domain"  will be remembered as status. Um, remembered by whom? They don't say. Coveted? By whom? Gee, musta been people who were knew her daughter had one.. well, that means very few unless we're talking about family friends.  And that's it, that is all in the entire article that relates to this corny-ass title. None of which makes any sense, and is completely made up.

Moving on to the rest of the article:
“Given all the power she had as secretary of state, a lot of that work would be jumbled together,” Mr. Wonderlich said. “Her presidential ambitions and the family foundation would be wrapped up technically in email.”
Ambition/Power-hungry meme. Has nothing to do with anything. NYT will add something about "ambition and power" in many of their Clinton stories, they push that and the rest every chance they get. 

Let's continue...
Mrs. Clinton’s allies have maintained that she followed protocol in the use of a private email address. A spokesman declined to elaborate on Wednesday about her use of for matters related to the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments.
What does that have to do with an article about email? Nothing. NYT adds "foreign donations" to many of the articles about Hillary Clinton whether it is relevant or not.

Wanna know something interesting? Turns out candidate Jeb Bush also used a private domain, he also had his own server, he also took his time handing over emails. Let's see how the NYT approached that...
In an email of talking points to supporters, Burns Strider, a senior adviser to Correct the Record, a group that defends Mrs. Clinton in the news media, pointed out that former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, also a likely 2016 presidential candidate, also hosts his own personal email server.
Jeb Bush? Server? Meh, it's just talking points from Clinton. Except Hil and Jebs email methods were exactly the same. The NYT ran up to a dozen articles about Mrs. Clinton's email, and excused Jeb's away as a talking point, mentioning his "personal email server" (3 words). He used the domain for his official email and ran it through his server, just as SOS Clinton did. I wonder if there was a coveted membership to Jeb's domain. Hmm. Doesn't say.

But ooooooh, ya know what else horrible Mrs. Clinton did! She put us all at risk, obviously, according to "Cybersecurity expert"...
She obviously would have been targeted when she stepped outside of the secure State Department networks,” said Tom Kellermann, a cybersecurity expert with Trend Micro. He said her use of her own email server instead of her government account, with its built-in security systems, would be akin to her leaving her bodyguard in a dangerous place. The unintended consequence, he said, is that Mrs. Clinton may have “undermined State Department security.”
Yes, that's right, random cyber-security "expert" has weighed in with his very own random speculation. He is not connected to the Gov't, he has nothing to do with anything or anyone, he is a random "cyber security expert" that works at a software company.

This is 3 out of every 5 articles about Hillary. Keep reading, you'll start to get the hang of reading Clinton NYT hit pieces very quickly.

[Media outs NYT for original hit piece]

NYT forgoes journalism, scandalizes Hillary, and gets called out ...

What is with the NYT and Hillary Clinton? I knew in 2008 they disliked her, they published some seriously poor journalism, from biased to weird to disdainful (she's "mean", she "doesn't say Obama's name warmly enough", it got weird). But for some reason I thought that was just due to love for Obama. But apparently that is not the case at all. And trust me, I was one of those liberals who grew up thinking the NYT was nothing but straight forward journalism, it wasn't until 2008 that it became clear that's not always the case.

Well fast forward to now, 3 weeks ago NYT "broke" a news story, that actually was uncovered in 2013, but who's counting. There was a twist this time. Hillary Clinton "may" or may not have broken the rules... oh, except that rule that she "may have broken" didn't actually even exist at the time, but NYT got around to that detail and that indeed she *hadn't* broken a rule, about 10 days later.

Only this time, their complete lack journalistic integrity was so brazen that a number of outlets called them out on it.  Here are a few of the articles that followed fraudulent reporting by the New York Times as they ran a non-story story of a non-scandal scandal that they further push after being busted..

--  But they never issued a retraction or corrected the story, creating a snowball of nonsense ---
They even doubled and trippled down, changed the narrative and got excited that it got picked up by Drudge Report. Yes, that's right, Drudge.


Only CNN issued a correction to pushing a false statement asserted by the NYT:
CNN Debunks false 'rule breaking' story

NYT, refusing to retract in their paper because that is easily trackable, chooses televison medium to admit fault.Times editor admits their story is not quite true. Basically, okay, we said she didn't follow the rules, found out that was not true so now have found another rule that could have been broken so maybe they were right but about something else...maybe.