Things the NYT doesn't write about Hillary Clinton

Wednesday Sept 10the Dept of Justice revealed to a federal court:

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision".

But the NYT chose not to cover it until late Friday night.

Since the NYT has been breathlessly writing (and mis-writing) about Hillary Clinton's emails since March, majority of them landing on the front page, you would think this would be part of their coverage. Guess again. It took 60 hours from the release of the statement for the NYT to admit it to their readers. The Washington Times (a right wing newspaper) published it first. It then took the NYT another 35 hours after Wash Times released the information, for NYT to publish it.

If you recall, they blame their "criminal probe" false story on a rush to scoop. This story on the other hand was absolutely true, and there was clearly no rush at all.

And when they finally put it into print, it was on page a14 on a Saturday. It makes you wonder, had Buzzfeed and MSNBC not gotten a hold of the information, would the NYT have written about it at all?

Keep in mind, pretty much all other emails stories insinuating wrong-doing, go on page a1. Heck, even NYT analyzing her spontaneity goes on a1. But this major addition to EmaILZ ends up somewhere on the bottom of the 14th page. And after 6 paragraphs of the story that they finally put up on Friday night online, they change the subject to her IT guy refusing to testify to the Benghazi committee.

The NYT is not just biased, they're not just yellow, they're corrupt.

Sexual innuendo & another GOP HRC smear, from NYT

The lowest lives in the GOP love to insinuate Hillary Clinton and Huma Abeden are lesbian lovers (the Free Beacon types, Judicial Watch, etc). But surely no news organization would play along. Not even TMZ has yet... oh, wait.. here comes NYT, namely Maggie Haberman, who was hired by Dean Baquet to troll Hillary Clinton.

I don't even know what to say about this so I'll just post it:


From NYT Twitter account:

And an article they actually wrote and printed. And yes, those are the first 2 paragraphs.

As I was saying, the "emails" writer at NYT has an agenda, now everyone can see it...

Today the email writing falsely indicated government officials were investigating Hillary in a crime probe. Well, that was a lie. But it's par for the course for the NYT.

My last post I showed a few of the tweets written by the NYT "emails" writer showing how clear his agenda is to make Clinton guilty of some type of wrong-doing. Any type would satisfy him so he keeps it up from all angles...

So yesterday, after a week of Trump mania keeps he and his cohorts from space to write nasty things about Hillary Clinton, and after one poll showing not good things for Clinton, time to get to work...writing fiction and pretending it's journalism. Yellow, yellow, yellow.

Here are Politico and Daily KOs catch the NYT being, as usual, shady.

NYT alters Clinton story without correction - Dylan Byers

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

And

NYT dramatically re-writes Hillary Clinton email after midnight - David Nir

David Nir points out the 2 different versions. The first story:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

and the re-write:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

And notes thusly:

In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that's transformed into an incredibly vague construction: "mishandled in connection with." What does "in connection with" even mean? It could mean almost anything. What's more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader. 

Perhaps it is the NYT that needs to be investigated.

NYT email writer pushing the negative narrative...frequently and openly

 The NYT email story writer, who gets lots of clicks for the NYT and also now more airtime on TV has a vested interest in the email story looking sinister, but tell me how this story pushing is ethical journalism. And if you can put DUN DUN DUN! after every tweet, probably someone is pushing some bullshit.

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

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.

 

 

NYT 'email scandal' writer declares a narrative change, posts it to Twitter followers..

 From writer M. Schmidt's Twitter on March 10th after "broke rules" story proved false, twice.

Here's what happened. Earlier this month a NYT writer wrote a story titled: 'Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules'.

Turns out the rule that didn't exist during her tenure.

So then they said, well, we think there's another rule she broke.

That turned out also not to be true.

So what's a writer to do who wrote one of the biggest non-scandal scandals in a decade? Change the narrative to keep the story going.

And that's exactly what he did. He posted this on twitter after it became obvious the original story was a non-story. Not even subtle: