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.