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.
https://vine.co/v/e7jvWLwgT31
No comments:
Post a Comment