Discussion for article #238741
New York Times (in Emily Litella voice) : âNever mind.â
Your liberal media at work again. All the fits thatâs news to print.
The variant I heard is: All the news that fits, we print."
Am I the only one who has a lot of faith in the NYTs? It seems like every month there is another shady story coming from them.
Donât forget, ââŚbut also is this a sign that Hillary is waging a war on journalists by trying to tell us how to do our jobs with regards to reporting accurate information?â
âThe agency now says that what it received was ânot a criminal referralââŚ.â
Clearly, someone has frightened DOJ into walking it back.
The Benghazi conspiracy must run far deeper than we ever imagined.
This is a perfect illustration of why I will never give a nickel to the NYT.
CBS breathlessly reported on how HRC âpossibly compromised potentially classified informationâ.
Ummm, info is either classified or itâs not.
I keep wondering if this was a planted story by some GOP operative, knowing the NYT couldnât resist a Hillary hit piece. Even though the story is looking like it is now completely debunked; lots of Media outlets are still running with it. Chuckles the Toad, mumbles something about journalistic ethics and then pivots and says something, something, itâs Hillaryâs fault that people donât trust her, blah, blah, blather, blather⌠isnât it time Hillary turned over her server to me, personally?
Meanwhile, Mrs and Mrs Cockup G. McHillaryhater are augmenting their misinformation over their morning coffee and the lie lives on in perpetuity in their minds.
Looks like the NYTâs revved up its Letâs-Get-the-Clintons app again.
Too late - the NYT already said âcriminalâ, so thatâs all that matters. Anyone really think the rightwing lunatics and bigots will accept the reality that it isnât âcriminalâ, now that the word has been used? Uh huh. Me neither.
I smell a rat. Someoneâs pimping a negative Hillary story to the press or creating one out of whole clothâŚAGAIN. And as usual, the NYT gets it wrong on Hillary. They have a habit of this.
Could it be that all this attention on tRump right now is doing immense damage to the Republican âbrandâ, and something âbigâ and âshinyâ like this is the only way to change the subject?? If it focused on other Republicans saying dumb shit, that would end up being a distinction without much of a difference, and that wouldnât be advantageous at all to Republicans, soâŚtime to turn the lights up on Hillary. Thugs really have nothing else to offer.
One thing you can count on with news cyclesâŚif a Republican is involved, it can run its course from a day to a week, or whenever ratings slip. If a Democrat is involved, it seems any issue can be revived at any time, even when it has already been debunked as a dead-letter matter. They just find new ways to smear dirt any way they canâŚwhile keeping the issue pumped up for maximum effect. It never seems to matter that most of the shit that gets dragged into the spotlight about Hillary is a partisan attack by regular hacks in the press. How many times can these assholes try to resurrect Benghazi-palooza with the aid of the press and get away with it without being challenged?
The original FOIA request on her emails is up to the State Dept. and possibly the CIA to determine what gets released, not Hillary Clinton.
So all the Hillary haters on Twitter claiming that the Clinton campaign is intimidating the press because the Times first published something that was even more wrong than the final version will now conclude that the Clinton campaign has bullied the Department of Justice.
Since some of those Hillary haters are ardent Obama supporters, the mental gymnastics to pull this off will be epic.
the New York Times is like âlittleâ Mikey from the life breakfast cereal commercial â theyâll believe/write anything.
Perhaps the NYT was punked again by rightwing operatives (see NYTâs Whitewater Masturbation Fantasy). Perhaps Young Publisher Sulzberger is fundamentally pissed at the Clintons. Who can say? This much is true: âA lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.â
Michael Schmidtâs byline is on the hit piece and I sigh every time I see it as he seems to have it in for Hillary. I guess heâs the Maureen Dowd of the news side.
Yeah, I think that was on the old Archie comicsâ âRiverdale Newsâ or whatever it was called. And at this point, I think Iâd trust their reporting on the Clintons more than the NYTâs.
And just a reminder as the latest bogus âscandalâ gets new, unwarranted life: in determining whether a given email was job-related or personal (on the secure server of a former president of the United States), she was exercising precisely the same discretion exercised, by law, by every Federal employee, whether in the past, when they would decide which email to preserve from a single account, or currently, when they decide which device to use to send a given email. This point canât be repeated often enough.
God save us from our awful, awful political âjournalism.â And curse the Times for their decades of leadership on that score when it comes to the Clintons.
@Manhattan123: Yeah, Schmidt definitely seems to be the Jeff Gerth of this cycle.
It smells of Rovian politics to me, The old divide and conquer thing, and just trying to get that 50 plus 1% objective imo. Most of the Hillary haters btw are not Obama supportersâŚI contend they are the same haters that have always existedâŚAny rightwing asshole with a vindictive approach to destroying the social safety net thatâs still left for the average American, and those that want to shrink our government in the bathtub for the sake of Corporate Personhood.
None of this matters. The damage is done. The scam worked.
The NYT should fire the reporter who filed the story and the editor who put it on page 1A of the NYT.
This was a patently false story planted by Republicans and the Hillary-Hating NYT ran with it.
IF they ever publish a retraction (donât hold your breath) it will run in section F under the Cialis ads. In 8pt type.
I am not a big fan of Hillary, but this just reeks of a FOX News-type non-story that was put out to whip up the mouth-breathers in a DESPERATE attempt to deflect the media from the on-going slow-motion train-wreck that is Trump and the Republican Nomination process.
The Gray Lady is now senile.
sad really.
There is no more journalism in print. Just âInfo-Tainmentâ.