The Curious Way New York Times Columnists Are Covering Hillary Clinton-HRC ROOM

[hrmjustin]

HILLARY CLINTON ROOM

ERIC BOEHLERT


Promoting his latest column deriding Hillary Clinton for being chronically unethical and a lot like Richard Nixon, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni took to Twitter to suggest the Democrat's campaign constituted "psychological torture," which definitely sounds bad. Unsubtly headlined "Hillary the Tormentor" (because she inflicts so much pain on Democrats, apparently), Bruni's effort was unusually overwrought even by his dramatic standards.

In his column, the essayist outlined concerns from two nameless "Democrats," who viewed Clinton as "tainted" and guilty of creating "ugly, obvious messes." One source was so "disgusted" he wants "never to lay eyes on [Hillary] and Bill again."

Turns out that same day, fellow Times columnist Ross Douthat also made Clinton the focus of his column and he also dinged the candidate. Far less excited than Bruni's effort, Douthat nonetheless made it clear that Democrats supporting Clinton should consider themselves "warned" for when things go terribly wrong if she's elected president.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/10/the-curious-way-new-york-times-columnists-are-c/203934

[Iliyah]

1. The vicious hounds are upon us.

HRC is ready for these types of ugly depictions of her and the lies and falsehoods as well. I believe majority of Democrats will support her, including a significant amount of Indies and sane GOPers.

[hrmjustin]

2. Shame that the NYT has gone so low.

[Iliyah]

3. WPo and other so called bias newpapers, internet sites, et al.,

CNN was top of the line cable news at one time in the distant pass. Majority of "news" outlets be it paper, social media, television no longer represent America but their corporate masters, and when the masters say trash HRC, they truly mean it by any means necessary.

[hrmjustin]

4. The news is about entertainment now.

[planetc]

5. The Times and both the Clintons

The story starts in 1992, or whenever the White Water story broke. From that date until the departure of Bill Clinton from the White House, and until today, the Times has been steadily attempting to destroy the characters of both the Clintons. This effort was, during Bill's presidency, spread evenly among columnists, reporters, and editorial writers. Since 1992, every day in every way, we have been warned about the sleazy characters of the Clintons. Frank Rich, who left drama criticism for the political world, was incessant in his insults; Maureen Dowd divided her energies between Bill and Hillary. One of Dowd's columns imagined Bill as a trailer park denizen, and darn if he didn't come off as pretty likeable in that column. I decided Dowd should turn to writing fiction, as she seemed to have more of a gift for that than politics, and that Rich should have stuck with drama, where he could do less damage. Bruni and Douthat are the second generation, and what they are spouting is the Times's party line. No one at the Times has noticed that the Clintons did nothing wrong in the White Water investment or its aftermath, that the impeachment was laughed off the stage by the President's lawyers in the United States Senate, that somewhere between $40 and $70 million in tax payer funds was wasted on this long witch hunt.

Someone wrote on the internet eventually that "No one expects a 3000 word apology to the Clintons by the Times, ..." I do, except it would need about 50,000 words to do an adequate job. And of course, this has been going on for what will soon be 23 years.

The bottom line is this: the Times cannot admit it was wrong; it cannot admit that much harm was done to the country by the incessant baying of its hounds in the Clinton "investigations." The Times's image of itself is that it can wrong, that it never did any wrong, that it is the gold standard for journalism. The truth is that it succumbed to a temptation to justify its first erroneous article on White Water, and it has done so ever since. And of course the times broke the email story, which consists of great billowing clouds of smoke about nothing. The Benghazi committee, like the Times, needs to find a Clinton, any Clinton, guilty of something. And like all the previous investigators, it expects the Clintons to supply their inquisitors with the evidence that will convict them. Either that, or they really don't care that there's no crime there, as long as they can keep the investigation in the headlines. And with the help of the Times, they probably can.

I beg of you, anyone who has read this far, don't believe anything the Times tells you about the Clintons until you've had it confirmed three times by reliable sources. Also, if you want to understand how American politics and "journalism" work these days, read Gene Lyons' "Fools for Scandal," and Conason and Lyons' "The Hunting of the President," and Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars."

[mcar]

6. Well said

The Times and the Post have had their knives out for the Clintons since before Bill's election.

All Democrats should take their reporting and opining with a large grain of salt.