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.

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". 

"Membership to Clinton Email Domain Remembered as Status".

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 clintonemail.com 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 clintonemail.com 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]