The unrelenting pundit-led effort to delegitimize all negative reporting about Hillary Clinton http://interc.pt/2bVfu5t
Here is an amazing—and more than a little revelatory—tweet from Carolyn Ryan, the political editor of The New York Times, which, as you may have noticed, is not having a very good election season at all. The story to which she links is a fairly typical piece by Glenn Greenwald, whom I greatly admire except on those occasions when I don’t, such as when he writes:
They also want a cessation of any news coverage that reflects negatively on Hillary Clinton.
This is, frankly, a small pile of bullpucky. But it’s no wonder that Ryan so approves of it. It gets her newspaper off the hook for the comic opera that has been its coverage of the Clintons ever since ol’ Howell Raines decided that national politics wasn’t big enough for two jumped-up Baby Boom Southerners and set the newspaper haring off after Whitewater and all the rest of it.
(Which coverage, I would argue, set the stage for the newspaper’s enabling of the inexcusable Judith Miller during the run-up to the Iraq War.)
Very few people outside the campaign want a “cessation” of negative coverage of HRC. Many of us simply want the coverage to make some fcking sense. Last night, after the MSNBC forum, for example, it appears that the Times once again barbered its account of an event, just as it appeared to do after Donald Trump’s batshit immigration speech in Phoenix. This just isn’t, as we say, cricket.
There is no objective standard under which I can be accused to being a Clinton partisan. (Small burst of bazoos erupts from the back booths of the shebeen.) But it is to be willfully blind not to see that the NYT coverage of HRC has become increasingly jump-the-gun bizarre. I do not “reflexively” attack anything, but we all should have been put on watch back in July when the paper published a shabby story about a “criminal inquiry” that had been opened regarding HRC’s e-mails, a story that the Times‘ own public editor called “a mess.”
Matters have not improved. And there is more than a little happy irony in having the NYT political editor seek solace in the works of Glenn Greenwald. It’s pretty damn funny if you think about it.
This entry was posted on September 8, 2016 at 7:16 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.