This is how the NY Times is covering the Clinton bomb scare -

[DURHAM D]

Link to tweet

[TreasonousBastard]

1. That's called background. Everyone just chill.

[hlthe2b]

2. That's called absolutely IRRELEVENT background. So, no, we will NOT chill.

NYT continues to express its Clinton disdain and while not on the order of the Trump ilck, it is indefensible when lives have been put at risk.

[DURHAM D]

3. Thank you. nt

[still_one]

10. Exactly, and it wasn't just direct toward the Clintons, which is why I no longer subscribe to them

and instead the Washington Post

This was the final straw that caused me to drop my subscription to the NY Times when they blamed the Democrats for causing the republicans to reject climate change:

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

[EffieBlack]

5. That's not background. That's gratuitous bullshit

and totally unrelated to the story.

If they included in every story about Trump when he's at one of his properties a paragraph about how that property was financed by the Saudis, maybe you'd have a point.

[LanternWaste]

7. How specifically does this particular background allow greater context to the actual story?

Which is, well... ya know, what background is for, regardless of your (again, irreverent) pleas of chill.

[unblock]

9. just last week there was a fire at my house. the reporter asked if i had a fixed-rate or floater.

[Squinch]

13. Seriously? Ummm... no.

[uponit7771]

14. You forgot the sarcasm thingy

[lamsmy]

16. No.

How the house was paid for is completely irrelevant to this story.

It is just another gratuitous attempt to convince the reader of the supposed Clinton-McAuliffe-McCabe link.

[tblue37]

18. It's a total non sequitur, included for no reason other than to make it seem

as though the Clintons and McAuliffe were involved in some sort of shady transaction.

[kcr]

21. Hmmmm n/t

[lark]

4. NYT hates Clintons and posts drumpf anonymous articles.

I will never subscribe to them again. I have kept my WaPo subscription intact because they don't front for rw'ers the way NYT does. I do miss some of the great comments and Paul Krugman, but it's not worth the cost of supporting what they put out.

[yardwork]

6. The New York Times has a lot to answer for.

[dsc]

11. wow simply amazing

The level of hatred directed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton by the press known few bounds.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Someone kindly find the link to this quote. The front page bomb story only has this...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyregion/clinton-obama-explosive-device.html

It is unclear where exactly the package addressed to Mrs. Clinton was sent. A security guard at the Clinton Foundation’s Midtown Manhattan offices said the explosive device was addressed to Mrs. Clinton’s home in Westchester County, not her offices.

The Clintons bought their 11-room Dutch Colonial home in Chappaqua, an affluent Westchester enclave, in 1999 for $1.7 million as Mr. Clinton ended his tenure in the White House. The decision to settle in Westchester came as Mrs. Clinton was preparing to run for Senate from New York.

If you're going to be pissed at the Times, at least be pissed at what they said, not what some tweet said they said.

[chowder66]

17. Here's the link...which looks like it was edited out based on the first comment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyregion/clinton-obama-explosive-device.html


Marc
Manhattan1h ago

Hold up...what is the purpose of this detail? "Facing significant debts from the legal troubles that dogged Mr. Clinton’s presidency, the Clinton’s were able to buy the house after their chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, personally secured a loan."

There are several news outlets that picked that up and linked it;

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/explosive-devices-found-in-mail-sent-to-obama-and-hillary-clinton/

[kcr]

22. Here

Seattle Times has the version before The Times edited it. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/explosive-devices-found-in-mail-sent-to-obama-and-hillary-clinton/

It is unclear where exactly the package addressed to Clinton was sent. Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have a home in Chappaqua, a suburb of New York City. They bought their 11-room Dutch Colonial home in the affluent enclave in 1999 for $1.7 million as Bill Clinton ended his tenure in the White House. The decision to settle in Westchester County came as Hillary Clinton was preparing to run for Senate from New York.

Facing significant debts from the legal troubles that dogged Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Clintons were able to buy the house after their chief fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, personally secured a loan.

[uponit7771]

15. Please confirm this tweet

[Hortensis]

19. I found a remark quoting that under one unexceptional article,

but didn't find the text. Could it have been removed? In a different, opinion piece?

I agree that bit would be twisted as written. They'd never cared about accumulating wealth before the presidency and did leave it in debt. And McAuliffe did carry their mortgage, a secure investment. But they also had sure-fire ways to bring in large incomes quickly (including of course speaking engagements with groups willing to pay huge bucks for trophy speakers) and could have easily obtained a mortgage from commercial sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/nyregion/clinton-obama-explosive-device.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Here's the difference where the McAuliffe paragraph was taken out

https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1686227/diff/1/2

More edits have been made after that.

[ck4829]

23. How long before "We need to understand the bomber?"