If the Times is worthless and pathetic for Judith Miller’s reporting leading up to the Iraq War (even accounting for its extraordinary mea culpa on the topic afterward and its appropriate sidelining of Miller for her unethical behavior), what does that make Hillary, who actually voted for war? Hint: Neither are worthless and pathetic, but both made terrible, terrible mistakes that they and we should learn from.
Fair or not, relationships with the media matter. That’s why they call it public relations. And Hillary Clinton sucks at relationships with the media … which is a handicap for a president … which is one of several reasons (including Iraq) that she’s not my ideal candidate and why Obama rightly won in 2008.
Reporters who cover the Clintons admit they treat them differently, that they assume every allegation is true until it can be proven false by them,that action they take is a cover up for something else. Under those conditions, how the Clintons treat reporters doesn’t matter.
They do more than an occasional great piece, and here’s a pic of someone you’ve never heard of being honored by President Obama at the White House: Charlie Sifford who broke racial barriers in golf on a par with Jackie Robinson in baseball. If you don’t hit a paywall you can read all about it.
That’s an absurd bit of blaming the victim there. Basically you are saying the NYT is justified because 15-20 years ago they got their institutional fe fe’s hurt? And the Clinton’s should be extra specially sweet to them every single day to make up for some unknown (you can’t even identify this horrible act the did to those poor innocent saintly reporters) slight from two decades ago?
Iraq probably deserved to be invaded, too. After all, they didn’t roll out the red carpet and shower the NYT’s reporters with the freshest dates and most expensive champagne when they visited. Kill them all for such an obvious and horrible lack of graciousness!!
Let me turn down the snark just a tad so I can be really clear on this point…the press and politicians are supposed to have an adversarial relationship, but it’s the press’s job to print the truth, not to publish hit pieces. It’s not supposed to be a personal axe grinder to work out their emotions…its a professional job with a stringent set of ethics and responsibilities. Or at least its supposed to be.
If you follow this within it’s frame…“it was a mistake”…you’ll go nowhere. It was a mistake that was allowed to happen. The NYT has been fiercely anti-Clinton for a long time. I wouldn’t trust their coverage of a Clinton anymore than I would FOX coverage of Jimmy Carter.
And they played it like pros. ‘Anonymous folks in the State Department’…a false article that jibed with their long time coverage of all things Clinton then a mini culpa that excused how the mistake could have been made and not the fact that it was. If you’re lying a propagandist you “get it out there”…allow it to soak in well past the point you should have retracted it then do a non-retraction retraction. Look at what NYT did.
Baquet needs to leave. All of us need to demand it. If Will Dana had to leave Rolling Stone mag why not have NYT fire Baquet??? I am gong to send an email to nytnews@nytimes.com demanding accountability!
I think you missed the big part. It doesn’t matter how much the Clinton’s loathe or publicly bad mouth the press ( and they don’t do it unless its long overdue ) . That press is still bound by the rules and may not lie about them. The Clinton’s can say what they want…they are private citizens. The NYT cannot. The NYT can detest the Clintons, and they do, but they cannot destroy them with lies. And just how much should the Clinton’s hold back…after this and White Water?
Wow…I hate to have to jump on you twice in one article, but…
So the fact that Judith Miller’s propaganda pieces disguised as reporting in no small fact helped shaped Hillary’s opinion on what the situation was (incorrectly), makes Hillary just as wrong as Miller?? Hillary, and much of the country, were essentially the dupes for a massive con game that Miller was running with Cheney and co…yet you think the victims are just as guilty as the con men. Wow.
How’s he doing? Last time I heard he said he was leading a “trial” against our President. But it seemed a long time ago and no summation or final argument yet.
That’s how it should be, but quite apparently, its not.
And political realities kick in and restrain the Clinton’s from even responding to the type of attacks the NYT has been launching. This letter for example, is going to be slammed by the right wing…queue up “Hillary is just too emotional to be President” stories any second now. (Sadly, I would have counselled her campaign not to put this out there. Push back as needed, and do as much of it as possible under the radar. But no politician should ever get into a public tit for tat with a newspaper. The politician can never win that)
Uh, nope. Read again – but could you do so with a desire to converse and understand one another, rather than oppose and attack? I am saying that Hillary’s lousy at media relations. Fair or not, that skill matters in any realm of public leadership.
On Iraq, @DaveyJones64 : If the Times’ reporting, mainly by Judith Miller, on Iraq defines that newspaper forever – to the extent that it’s a scarlet letter on this thread — how does Hillary’s vote for war stack up? How does Hillary’s dissembling on her vote compare to the front-page mea culpas and very public operational changes that the Times underwent in the process of actually owning up to its mistake?
It’s always easy to attack the press in very general terms. The Times blew it on this story, but it’s still a great news organization that performs an unparalleled service. And Hillary still sucks at public relations. Do you not agree that calling the Times “worthless and pathetic” is just plain ignorant?
"Hillary, and much of the country, were essentially the dupes for a massive con game that Miller was running
Are you really saying that the Times is responsible for Hillary’s vote for war in Iraq? Stop and think, Davey. Is that at all a credible argument? Not even Hillary says that: She says it was a vote not for war – but for leaving it up to the administration — which is mainly bull, of course. Others have said the administration was very misleading in the information it shared with the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee (on which she sat), which has some merit (but then, the same would be true about how the media was misled, except even more so). (Edited to add detail).
Covering news is what they are supposed to do but manufacturing stories and printing lies is not. We disagree on the Times. There is no need to insult others because they don’t agree with you.
No one is talking about her vote on the Iraq war here We are talking about the Times having it in for the Clintons since Bill was in office and for the pathetic piece of “journalism” not based on facts and then dragging their feet on the retraction of the story.
