This week in "We Cover Hillary Clinton Fairly"

After a botched hit-piece and many a mention of the NYT ridiculously biased coverage against Hillary Clinton, word this week from multiple people at the NYT is that there's no difference in their HRC coverage vs other candidates. Feel free to scroll through my blog a see what you think, but here's a NYT mini photo montage of what no bias looks like. Just a few pics from March through June. NYT cover several other candidates and I can almost guarantee you, they do not look like this.

This a few weeks before Hillary Clinton announces 

(right after the first botched email story they walked back in March):

This accompanied an op-ed by weekly columnist Frank Bruni

about how Hillary Clinton makes democrats sick, titled "Hillary the tormentor".

This after her announcement date is set (see photo comparison). 

The Prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the 

White House will reach its suspenseless conclusion"

This cuz any opportunity to decapitate her is good enough:

This goes to the article calling Hillary Clinton a wax figure, freak and queen:

This is the only one not from this year. 

All excuses aside (whatever those could be), there are not images like these for the other candidates. There aren't, and if someone could prove me wrong, go for it. Find me 3 the equivalent of these for Jeb Bush or another candidate. nytnarrative@gmail.com

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.

The NYT publishes "criminal inquiry" after they know it wasn't true.

The NYT seriously botched a story, well, basically made one up. First they wrote a story that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a criminal probe. Blasted it out to millions via email on the Thursday, then quietly removed that claim early Friday morning (without noting the changes). The new story was that there was a "criminal inquiry" related to Hillary Clinton's emails. Turns out that was also false, but according to Dean Banquet, it's because their "sources got it wrong" (that being the 2nd story, no one knows where first one came from and Dean's not talking). But after the NYT found out that there was no "criminal inquiry" at all they continued to publish repeatedly that there was.

It's not just a case of waiting too long to remove, they published it at least 3x after they knew that wasn't the case.  

The story of the NYT July 23rd faulty reporting is indeed extensive, as nothing in their story was correct, but this post is proof that there's more to it than a rush to judgement. Proof of NYT purposefully telling a significant untruth. This was not a mistake, or a rush to scoop, it was publishing a falsehood.

By 9:24am Friday morning it was confirmed by DOJ and other sources that there was "no criminal inquiry" but NYT made the decision at some point that the claim would stay in and they left it in both the lead and the title. In fact, they didn't just not remove it, they republished it. Here's what happened:

-DOJ announces by 9:24am that there is no criminal inquiry
-NYT Republished the "criminal inquiry" falsehood at 10:51am.
-An editor admitted at 12:12pm in a tweet they knew it wasn't a criminal inquiry.
-Republished the falsehood at 2:54pm
-7 hours goes by, they still do not remove it. By this time all major news organizations have removed it, a number of them also tweeting, that there is no criminal inquiry
-Republished the falsehood at 10:05pm.
Update: -Finally removed Saturday morning at what looks to be 9:29am

Which means the NYT knowingly published false information tying a leading presidential candidate to a criminal investigation multiple times over a course a number of hours AFTER knowing it was not the case. Indeed, they lied.

In fact, the writer of the story, Michael Schmidt, who I've written about before, was a guest caller on Hardball Friday late afternoon and did not correct it then even after the host asked him multiple why is it criminal. The host knew because anyone who read the story could see it made no sense.

So why would a newspaper lie about a presidential candidate and try to link it to something criminal when they were already under scrutiny and knew it wasn't at all the case.

NYT let it stay over night and finally removed "criminal inquiry" 9:29am Saturday, 7/25. Also removed were 100's of previously approved and published comments. Those are now at zero and closed.

Here is the change log showing multiple edits were made in the lead but criminal enquiry left in and republished. This isn't by accident.

So just in case you were thinking: The NYT can't lose a scoop, there aren't enough editors, a source burned them.... none of those explain the above. None. The NYT purposely published a known falsehood in their article tying Hillary Clinton to a non-existent "criminal inquiry" for a full day after knowing the truth.

And guess who did it. Hint, a story botched this badly means that higher up hands are on deck. Highest ranking person "directly involved with the story" according to NYT public editor Margaret Sulliview, is Executive Editor, Dean Baquet.

And by the way, what *was* the real story? After 2 days, a total replacement of the first hideous article, 10 edits and 2 written corrections of the replacement article, it boils down to this: 2 agencies arguing over what is classified and whether the State dept is releasing sensitive into when releasing Hillary Clinton's emails to the public.

"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an 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."

That's it. That only after multiple political talk shows and many online media outlets wrongly relayed that Hillary Clinton and/or her handling of her emails, were the target a criminal investigation.

Like I said, there are other serious issues with the article(s) that were noticed almost immediately after their first publish of the original article up to even the last article and can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and other places.

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 *hearts* Bush.

You will never see an article like this in the NYT about Hillary Clinton... But for Jeb Bush, this is not rare. 

"A Candidate at Last, Jeb Bush Bounces Into New Hampshire"

Hillary's was:

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

NYT re: Jeb Bush

"disarmingly playful and noticeably relaxed, quick to joke and eager to connect".

NYT re: Hillary Clinton

 "trying awfully hard to be down w/ the in crowd"

 
But lets see more. NYT re: Bush. No, really, here are a few sentences in the article:

-Mr. Bush’s wry response: “Well, I’m glad you got a job.” The audience erupted into laughter and applause.

-Before she had even asked her question, Mr. Bush walked over and gave her a firm hug. 

-There were, of course, a few beginner’s mistakes.

-Appearing at ease and nimble as he engaged with them.

-A cerebral policy maven, Mr. Bush has often seemed more at ease dissecting data with think-tank scholars than fielding oddball queries from voters, 

-Mr. Bush who, with time, could hold his own against his party’s most talented talkers

-Mr. Bush wielded his dry humor over and over on Tuesday

-He gave a long, emotional hug to a woman who told of her decades-long struggle with mental disabilities.

Certainly a far cry from "wax figure", "freak" "queen" . But not unlike other articles they've written about Jeb Bush during this election.

NYT writes yet another post on the Clinton's vacationing in the Hamptons...

[NYT Narrative: Rich, elitist, and little more than a politician]:

Here Amy Choznic is instructed by the NYT to write an 2,000 word article on the Clinton's vacation and how it contrasts with her populist stances.

First 3 paragraphs:

For the past several summers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done what New York City’s moneyed residents have done for decades: They spent their vacation amid the prime beachside real estate of Long Island.

In 2011 and 2012, there was the eight-bedroom, 12,000-square-foot East Hampton rental with a heated pool that the couple took for part of August, the kind of house that typically goes for $200,000 per month, according to local real estate listings.

Then, in 2013, they opted for an equally pricey six-bedroom mansion in Sagaponack with a private pathway to the beach. (Mrs. Clinton worked on her memoir, “Hard Choices,” from a sunny office with an ocean view.)

followed by...blah blah blah blah...she's a politician....blah blah. Same article they've written multiple times.

Bonus: The zillionth email article from the other day:

Mr. Blumenthal handed over the emails to the committee on Friday in response to a subpoena. Dozens had never been provided to the panel, raising questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton had complied with its requests.

“As some of you know, this has been an ongoing issue; I want the documents, not the drama,” Mr. Gowdy said.

This from the guy who sent 2 sheriffs to Blumenthal's house to deliver a subpoena to his wife, after he leaked Blumenthal emails to the NYT. Needless to say that never "raised questions" about the how political this effort by Gowdy is.