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 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.

NYT gets called out for their sloppy & yellow journalism w/ Schweizer story

Newsweek, NBC, ABC, Newsmax and others don't agree with the NYT insinuated charges. "Sloppy journalism" "doesn't hold up" "insinuates scandal where there is none" "peppering their story w/ innuendo for a juicy pay to play story". Way to go NYT.

Needless to say the story produced by the NYT on Schweizers "Clinton Cash" insinuation of wrong doing by SOS Clinton reads like every other piece they write on the Clintons, full of innuendo and insinuation, misleading facts and omitting others.

It took the NYT a few days after getting their goods from conservative activist, Peter Schwiezer, for them to print the Uranium/Clinton story, so at least they fact checked some of Schweizer's details before publishing his POV. But they failed to even find out how the approval process works, so basically, they just re-wrote Schweizer's story.

Did everyone agree with the NYT and Schweizer's insinuations that were very close to accusations? Fox, yes. The typical haters, yes.. lots of accusations to make (Morning Joe, Chuck Todd, the rest of the clowns). Occasionally adding their own random theories. But not everyone agreed:

Obviously camp Clinton disagrees: This excerpt from the debunk.

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.

As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.

Newsweek pretty much captures it all:  [Schweizer's book] "reads like a hatched job", and speaks to the painfully poor logic of the entire book.

Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy. 

The other person NYT smears in the deal is Frank Guistra, long-time philanthropist, recipient of last year's first ever Dalai Lama humanitarian award. He had something to say too. He describes the NYT article as:

 "an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."

Very sad indeed.

Then Howard Dean calls out the NYT for the story, saying their political writers are "sloppy" and "substituting news for judgement". 

Even the NYT own Jack Krugman calls the NYT out.

Gene Lyons, who wrote about flawed NYT reports of Whitewater chimes in: Media Insinuates Scandal where there is None.

New Republic calls NYT out for "peppering their story w/ innuendo" for a "juicy pay to play story" (that amounts to yellow journalism but we already know that's how NYT rolls).

Hell, even NEWSMAX comes to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.

We know how the NYTimes reacts to obvious flaws in their Clinton reporting. They double down. Triple down and then some so I'm sure they'll have more nonsense to report shortly.

A stroll down memory lane of the NYT printing very serious false accusations...

Just a reminder to folks who think the NYT doesn't mislead the American public for financial or political reasons, let's take a look into the past at only 4, starting with their hand in selling the Iraq war by scaring Americans into believing Bush's lies about Saddam Hussein.

1. Their false, incorrect, misleading stories that helped sell the Iraq war to the public with "verified" stories, (that they later admit were not verified) about stories about Saddam's quest for weapons. Well apparently they were just given wrong information, oops:

The problematic articles (oops) varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. -NYT

Oh, the informants had an agenda, (sorta like a recent source of recent article insinuating something sinister, story false) great sources then, anyone else have agenda? Based on the content of NYT articles featured in my blog and on others', I'd say it's hardly unusual for NYT to use their paper to push an agenda. But the NYT has an excuse for selling misinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapon aquisition, and it's also part of their regular method of operation; not taking the time to verify.

"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper". -NYT

Well that's interesting. Well surely after a mistake (?) that helped sell a war that killed 5,000 Americans and 200,000 Iraqis that would be sufficient enough to make sure the next time you insinuate or claim that a country in the Middle East has weapons of mass destruction you would double, triple, quadruple check. But that didn't happen, this did: (2) They pushed the exact same falsehoods regarding Syria/WMD.

And we know they love their Clinton hit-pieces that later turn out to be false, some of course setting off major consequences, like their (3) faulty Whitewater reporting and or (4) other bs that leads to investigations that last years. (I'll add this one in for good measure, pretty much the same insinuated charge as their recent story about Clintons and Uranium, but this debunked hit piece was in 2008)

Mistakes? The thing is, editors don't accidentally let reporters rush to report dictators that a U.S. president is on the verge of going to war, are ramping up seeking weapons. The NYT has an agenda and they have blood on their hands, a lot of it; You can be sure they have no problem pushing a Republican into the White House that will result in a stacked conservative SCOTUS that will impact 1,000's upon 1,000's of people's lives. Why they hate the Clintons and why they are so eager to put Jeb Bush into the White House isn't something I'm willing to speculate on, but don't forget that they don't care who is hurt, who will suffer or even how many will die as a result of whatever their agenda is.

NYT randomly defends author of anti-Clinton book on Twitter.

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

Morning Joe: 'Clinton Cash' writer's anti-Clinton connections were not divulged

Morning Joe is correct. In fact, in the NYT recent write up there is little noted as to who this author is and what his writings or history are.

Morning Joe notes on his show: @ 8:01 "If in fact [Schweitzer] has any connection to Ted Cruz's super pac or with other organizations that are overtly anti-Clinton, that should be in any introductory piece, and it certainly wasn't in any report that I saw".

Let's check: Not in the NYT, that's for sure! Not in any of the over 20 paragraphs written by Amy Choznik

Here is NYT introduction of the writer:

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

That's it. They barely even mention his political leanings.

The only mention of his being possibly biased is couched in a paragraph about a pro-Democrat super PAC trying to "make the case that he has a bias" in the 9th paragraph.

Conservative super PACs plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a "pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speech writing consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com** to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton."

*Does* the author has a bias? Let's take a look:

Media Matters says

Peter Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative group with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch: 

But even a quick look at Wiki will tell you all you need to know: The Author, Peter Schweizer, who is the President of GAI, "The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative investigative research organization" -Wiki

**Also, according the NYT, Schweizer "has contributed to Breitbart",  but according to Schweizer's facebook posts, he is currently a Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Larg.

And they omit completely that he is President of a conservative investigative research organization. 

NYT makes a deal for opposition research directly from conservative hit-piece writer...

Politico: Fox and NYT Makes Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt

Here's the round up so far (and it's only been a day since one of their writers tweeted about their oppo research deal with the conservative hit piece author.

Not affectionate toward HRC, Daily KOS reports: NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

Very unfond of Hillary Clinton, liberal blog 'Crooks and Liars', says, No matter what you think of her, this is something larger

Politico reports: NYT/FOX make a deal for anti-Clinton research

National Memo reports: Murdoch Empire colludes with "liberal media" to promote "Clinton Cash"


NYT Responds on Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt, with an odd single sentence statement.

Esquire magazine weighs in: The day political journalism died and the people killed it

MediaMatters runs down who the author actually is, and what he does...and puts together a list of *some* of Schweizers lies and inaccuracies (smears).

Salon reports: The right's new expose just went mainstream, NYT got hooked

But would the NYT really spread serious allegations that are totally false. Yes. And its pretty bad. Here's a recent notable one. 

 

NYT pushed lies about chemical weapons in Syria for which there was no proof.

 

But more often they leave out information in order to insinuate or draw improper conclusions:

 

Here's a good example: Issa sent a letter directly to Hillary asking about her email and she ignored it!  

 

Orrrr, Issa sent a broader letter to 18 agencies and didn't hear back from Clinton. Which do you think the times wrote and which do you think is true. Well, NYT Clinton writers don't look at the big picture, only what looks juicy.

 

Nothing new, tons of similar garbage in March in their very busy month, got called out back then as well:

But surely these are professionals. Yeah, no, they're not.

 

And it's always good for business when they can write right-wing hit pieces on the Clintons... here's one of the NYT hit-piece writers bragging that he got on drudge (with his story that proved false)

 

Today on the campaign trail in fact, someone asked SOS Clinton about the book, after answering Clinton then noted Republicans are all about her and not the issues. She was then mocked by NYT writter Maggie H. But it turns out, it Maggie's own paper came to the same conclusion that Hillary had. Top of the imagine, the NYT 2 days ago. Bottom half of image, NYT Maggie twittering derisively about SOS Clinton.