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. 

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.

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. 

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) 

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.