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.

Clinton reveals announcement, the NYT disparages and disembodies her...

On Friday the Clinton team revealed her announcement would be Sunday, what does the NYT do? First they describe her announcement like this:

The prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the White House will reach its suspenseless conclusion.

Prolonged? There's like 6 more people to announce and only 2 have, but anyway, double standard, the usual... They complain a couple paragraphs later that before she has announced she hasn't announced why she's running. And then there's this, a disembodied image of Hillary Clinton, her face barely free of dark shadow. Not the first time they have completely disembodied her head. Can you spot the difference?

A little bit different than their stories and images for other contenders.

They write their next article hours later. Looks something like this. This photo doesn't actually fit the article, this photo says more about catching up or being in his shadow, rather than how to deal with running as a separate administration. And then the obvious, that she has no lower face.

NYT goes after Bill Clinton, including his looks... they get called out...

As ugly (and as weird) as ever, on a day that the NYT have to skip a 'we-hate-hillary' story, they go after her family, namely her extremely popular husband. At some point they even have to print a correction of one of their narratives.

[NYT Narrative: Bill is old, Hillary is unfriendly, and they think they're royalty]

Bill Clinton calls it out: And he's right, "creative writing" indeed.

Here's just the first quarter of the 'lets diminish Bill Clinton' story:



In that story, of course they manage to insult Hillary Clinton too, randomly referring to her as "less gregarious". Interesting choice of words. Bill is exceptionally gregarious, by comparison the vast majority of people would be less gregarious, if you really wanted to go there you would put "not as gregarious" or make mention of how gregarious *he* is as opposed to saying she is "less gregarious", so....

They continue to find random ways to belittle the former president:

This month in Miami, Mr. Clinton showed he could follow orders

 As I've mentioned before, 1/2 of the stories they write include "foreign donations"

The foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments, has come under criticism for potential conflicts of interest while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state

And of course pushing the narrative that the Clintons are privileged and live in a bubble (as they randomly accuse them of being in this piece).

"...sends an aide to buy his dress shirts at Bergdorf Goodman, and when he steps out of his S.U.V., he sometimes spreads his arms awaiting an aide to put his jacket on each arm." 

Ironic since one of the reason the NYT dislikes the Clintons is that they are not the NYT fishbowl considers southern trash.

They at some point even refer to him as being chauffeured. They have to issue a correction:

NYT Mar. '15; Clinton Narratives gone weird....

NYT narrative: Hillary victimizes intellectuals, owes them her personal emails - Scott Shane 3/12
[bonus NYT narrative words include: Monica, Polarizing figure, Richard Nixon]

Awash in Information Historians Fear Loss of Rich Material

Creepy, weird and obnoxious pretty much describes this NYT narrative and story... they're saying because historians didn't randomly get all her personal emails written that she is somehow taking something away from them.

Keep in mind, here is the process by which SOS Clinton was to archive her emails, there are instructions that she was to use. In a nut shell they are: Hand over work related materials only and not personal ones.

But by the way Times writes the story, they omit that part and act as if she was supposed to turn them over, and now the historians don't have them.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed that she had destroyed more than 30,000 emails about personal matters during her tenure as secretary of state, it was painful for historians and biographers. Some imagined themselves or their successors in 20 or 50 years prowling the archives with little success for the most intimate, revealing raw material.

Now, if these are Hillary Clinton's personal emails, how is that a loss to historians if they were hers never to be divulged. Because she kept them in the same place as her work emails? The way the archival process goes is, you archive work related matters and not personal. That is right out of the manual. So it's not a loss to historians because they would never have gotten her personal emails anyway. That's the weird part.

Creepy. Are they lamenting that they won't get hands on her personal emails? They wouldn't have gotten them anyway. ?? I know i just said that, under "weird", but this is both weird AND creepy. Oh speaking of creepy:

The lost Clinton emails, (??? They're HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) said Doris Goodwin might have helped fill in a vivid future portrait. (THEY'RE HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS) “A government official is not just an official,” said Ms. Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and other figures. “They have marriages and children and rich private lives that are all mixed up with their public lives. As a biographer, that’s what you want.”

I find it almost hard to write about why this is so weird because it makes no sense. "I lament that i don't have a million dollars", okayyy, and? It's not mine, ?? so?

GET READY FOR THIS:

Her decision to delete the personal emails (why would she hand them over? they are her personal emails) may reflect her experience as a polarizing figure who lived through the searing experience of her husband’s very public sexual affair with a White House intern. 

When you personally delete your personal emails, is it because you are a "polarizing figure"? And what. the. f. does Monica Lewisky have to do with ANYTHING?? wtf?

Now, as a likely presidential candidate, she opted to delete the private emails out of concern that they could leak and be used to embarrass her or undermine her candidacy.

THEY ARE HER OWN PERSONAL EMAILS.

CREEPY ALERT: “If she becomes president, we would eventually want to have all the intimate details of her life before the presidency,” said Robert Dallek, a prominent presidential historian. “It’s all part of the historical record.”

We want to have all the intimate details of her life? It's all a part of the historical record? Dear reader, are you taking this in? Does this article now make any sense at all. The reason it is this crazy is because NYT makes up crazy s--t when they write about the Clintons (more so about Hillary than Bill actually).

THIS IS AN ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER who's byline is "all the news that's fit to print". Umm....

Wait, NYT isn't done until they call compare her to Nixon for not giving the government and the public her personal emails...

But Richard M. Nixon’s tangle with taping, in which incriminating recordings during the Watergate scandal helped end his presidency, has left his successors disinclined to record. “I doubt that we’ll find recordings from the recent presidents,” Mr. Dallek said. “That’s a shame.”

Here instructions were NOT to turn over her personal emails, her instructions by the State department were to turn over ONLY her work related materials.What the hell does that have to do with Nixon. Oh, NYT Clinton Narrative.

Narrative Pushing March '15 - Pretending exoneration proof proves guilt...

This one is bizarre, and awful at the same time. New information surfaces and proves that the drama story (HRC using her own email) is a non-issue ("regulations permitted") and now her method turns out has actually meant her emails were saved because .gov emails were NOT archived... but instead of using this new found information to add closure, they use it to pretend she was mistaken and now emails are lost. But in reality the article proves the opposite, because of her server, emails are saved. Sounds weird but look, it's true...

Emails Mrs. Clinton said were saved may be missing

Michael Schmidt, 3/12/15. This story is one of the few stories about her in the last 20 days that has actual relevant information in it. They are:

1. There was not at any time in State Department (and other departments) history, archiving of emails. Not until a few months ago. Which means, if Hillary Clinton had used a government email address, her emails would have not been saved because there was no auto archiving.

State Department disclosed on Friday that until last month it had no way of routinely preserving senior officials’ emails. Instead, the department relied on individual employees to decide if certain emails should be considered public records, and if so, to move them onto a special record-keeping server, or print them out and manually file them for preservation.

So wait,  NO ONE'S EMAILS HAVE BEEN SAVED...except for a very few people, one of those people being Hillary Clinton.

So now the entire email story is moot because no one's emails were saved. Oh, except for the ones on Mrs. Clinton's server, which means she saved more emails than anyone else.

But the title says they may be lost... Makes no damn sense huh. Oh, NYT... Clinton story.. that's how it goes, makes no sense.

Read it. See if it makes any sense what so ever. I could go into the backwards logic of it, but honestly, when you read it, if it makes your brain hurt, that's backwards logic.

And the whole original drama was, ZOMG, SHE BROKE RULZ, SHE HAD OWN EMAIL SNEAKY...

Regulations issued by the National Archives in October 2009 said that agencies where employees were free to use private email systems “must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” (She did preserve them, and did turn them over. (But she did so late. 2 years late. Jeb Bush's were 7 years late, but Hillary sneaky. got it).

So now there is no rulz breaking, and using her own server ended up saving all her emails.

See, NYT wrote a flawed story and it got them a huge amount of attention. Now they have to keep the story going. So even though news came out that should make it clear it was better that she used her own server, they spin it into... i don't even know what to call it because it's so weird. An opposite story?

Now what's the email drama? None. But it's not over because it's all every media outlet can talk about it because the NYT is keeping the flames going, the writers even bragging on twitter that they're getting Drudge traffic. lol. And even worse, it is now being used in politics, the GOP has picked it up, they want to issue subpeonas, and are calling for third party investigators.... does this sound familiar to you? Well guess what. NYT wrote a similarly flawed Whitewater story. There you go.

Times Narrative Pushing Mar '15 - Planting doubt about Mrs. Clinton's dediction to childhood education

Narrative: Wall street triangulater may sell out the children:
[Bonus negative narrative words: Cozy with Wall Street, Triangulate]

I'm just using random articles from the last few weeks, if I did them all I'd have to write one article every day and I can't right now. But here's another easy to read negative narrative piece from the NYT about Hillary Clinton:

Here's a pretty disgusting one. Hillary has been championing for children her entire life. So the NYT is going to try to erode something in the mind of readers that she holds very close to her heart and that she is well-known to care about. *shudder*. This one actually hurt to read.

Hillary Clinton Caught Between Dueling Forces on Education: Teachers and Wealthy Donors

This is targeted at a specific audience: The far left of the democratic party for whom "Wall Street" are trigger words. This article is designed to plant apprehension about Hillary Clinton's dedication to childhood education. And by the way, she cares about children and their welfare a great deal, so if the conclusion is she would sell them out, that makes her the evil person the NYT would love everyone to believe. We'll get to how easy that works for them in a moment.

Already, she is being pulled in opposite directions on education. The pressure is from not only the teachers who supported her once and are widely expected to back her again, but also from a group of wealthy and influential Democratic financiers who staunchly support many of the same policies — charter schools and changes to teacher tenure and testing — that the teachers’ unions have resisted throughout President Obama’s two terms in office.

??? What? how is she being pulled? Did someone make a request? Where's the pressure? Did she have to make a choice somewhere? Nope. Nope. Nothing.

And the financiers say they want Mrs. Clinton to declare herself.“This is an issue that’s important to a lot of Democratic donors,” said John Petry, a hedge fund manager who was a founder of the Harlem Success Academy, a New York charter school. “Donors want to hear where she stands.”

"they want HC to declare" sorta makes it seem as if they're demanding that she speak now, but it's really much more passive when it comes from the mouth of the person they're referring to "donors want to hear where she stands".

And that's it for how she is "caught between". That's it. That's the entire article's premise and it comes down to some hedge fund guy who "was a founder" of a charter school says "donors want to hear where she stands". That's it. That's what the article is based on. And btw, which donors are those? Just... "donors"?

And now let's get down some information about our current president on the issue and how it relates to the future:

The growing pressure on education points out a deeper problem that Mrs. Clinton will have to contend with repeatedly, at least until the Iowa caucuses: On a number of divisive domestic issues that flared up during the Obama administration — trade pacts, regulation of Wall Street, tax policy — she will face dueling demands from centrists and the liberal base of the Democratic Party.

okay, fair enough, wait, where are the magic scary words? Oh, here they are:

Some progressives already view Mrs. Clinton as overly cozy with Wall Street. And should she align herself with the elite donors who favor an education overhaul, many of them heavyweights in the investment world, it could inflame the liberal Democratic base. [Hey guys, this is you! Get crazy!]

Meme: Clinton = Wall Street. And they continue to suggest her decision on childhood education is automatically political. Read even just her Wiki page started after graduating college and you'll see why it sucks to see them even dare go there.

Magic word alert, here it comes:

...but he said he was concerned: “She has had more longstanding ties to the teachers’ union, certainly, than Obama ever had. She’s thrown some bones to both sides and I think is sort of trying to triangulate on this.”

Ding ding ding. triangulate is an OLD meme related to Mr. Clinton (who does triangulate but you will very very very rarely see this word used toward anyone else other than the Clintons), this word comes up during election time only. And NYT has made sure to get it in regarding childhood education, smooth. And that's why I'm writing this, because it works but once you learn how to spot this junk, you'll see if for what it really is.

Other gems to push the narrative: Mrs. Clinton has plenty of time to maneuver before taking sides -NYT

It would have been impossible for the NYT to omit that Hillary Clinton has cred with educators.

Mrs. Clinton will at least not have to establish credibility on the subject. Her involvement with efforts to overhaul education dates back at least to the early 1980s, when her husband named [yeah, that's it folks, just stuff her husband named her as, fu nyt] her co-chairwoman of an Arkansas committee that called for a teacher-competency test, smaller classes and a higher dropout age. As a senator, she voted for No Child Left Behind in 2001, but later attacked the law, saying it was failing children.

DOH. Look at that, she voted for it, then attacked it. Any reason for that? *shrug*, musta just changed her mind maybe. As did Ted Kennedy and every other liberal who worked on the program.

I cannot, tell you, how thankful I am that they gave the education professional the final word. Because when the NYT is not speaking, and someone else is, it goes something like this:

But she rejected the idea that Mrs. Clinton would set policy based on anything other than “her experience and the evidence.” “She has been versed in these issues for a long time, and will give everyone a fair hearing and a fair shot, but she will look at it through the lens of what’s good for kids. Period,” Ms. Weingarten said. “Anybody who thinks otherwise just doesn’t know her.”

NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WELL THESE PIECES WORK WITH THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE. From the comments:

"If she continues to triangulate, wanting to please everybody and displease no one, with her ambition her only constant, she might get the nomination, but she will likely lose the Presidency; even to half-mad Republican candidates that might trump Mrs. Clinton in the authenticity department".

see that? Instantly the commenter parroted GOP meme words and proclaims her to be inauthentic.

This group is very easily fooled. 1, because even as a former reader, you believe the NYT. 2. They have been hearing this narrative for so long that when it is strung together in what seems like a real article it all seems to fit. Furthermore, progressives are so convinced they are geniuses that they are thoroughly convinced they're opinions come from actual information. Fail.

"I honestly wonder if there's any issue left on which she has an absolute, unmovable opinion".

"I think it's possible that she will come out with a position that's best for Hillary".

"Just another example of what Hillary stands for or not or maybe. Given her past performance--she will side with the wealthy donors. How sad for us progressives and even more so--how sad for the US.

ALERT: There was NO example. She did not make a choice. Nor can one of these people come up with a time that she sided with a wealthy donor.

See how easy it is to fool people? These comments were from the first comments, which means highest rated. I didn't have to go far to look for them. There are 100's that say the exact same thing.

SHE BETTER CHOOSE RIGHT!!! That apprehension delivered by the NYT.

But after all:

she prepares for a likely second run at the White House, Mrs. Clinton is re-entering the fray like a Rip Van Winkle for whom the terrain on education standards has shifted markedly, with deep new fissures in the Democratic Party.

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]