Discussion: Fox News Also Responds On Deal With Conservative Writer About Hillary Dirt

Discussion for article #235489

Are these statements by Fox and the NY Times just another variant of “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”?



“We’re reporters, dammit! No, really!”

We had access to some material ...but we wanted to do our own reporting

Still makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to do your own reporting, then, you know, **do your own reporting, **and stop relying on an author with a known ideological bent.

Also, too? Heckuva job, NY Times. You’re now being lumped in with Fox News.


Peter Schweizer, Sarah Palin’s foreign policy adviser.


It also occurs to me that if and when the “NY Times and Friends” publishes material gleaned from Schweizer’s Book, will they also report extensively on any ensuing criticisms of Schweizer based on poor scholarship and shoddy journalism. From his past history and M.O. published by Media Matters, ensuing criticism seems almost certain. Or, will they simple give us a “bygones”, a la Richard Fish in “Ally McBeal”, on the bottom of one of the back pages? I’m betting on the latter.

This could be a huge risk for both the N.Y. Times and the GOP who may be only looking at the upside of what amounts to a journalistic “Pascal’s Wager”; the chance, however slim of a journalistic coup; and ignoring the downside; that the book and it’s component materials are fatally flawed and that, irrespective of merit, it all comes off, anyway, as just another election year attack on Hillary Clinton, a woman struggling to burst through the political glass ceiling, by a crazed, GOP think tank wanker and a stenographic press.


Downside? There really wasn’t much downside to Scaife’s Arkansas Project. Stuff they’ll dredge up is either true or untrue but plausible considering that the Clintons are crooked and evil. And killed Vince Foster.


Fox looking for dirt on Bill and Hillary…probably a step up for Roger Ailes.

Fox: we have secured the rights to am hour long hit piece on Hillary Clinton.This is of course a perfectly normal thing for us to do. So what’s the big deal?

1 Like

That was Hillary. Bill had nothing to do with it.

Rachel pointed out Peter Schweitzer had numerous stories that were debunked multiple times by fact checkers.
One link is about false stories in Schweitzer’s past and the other is an interview with David Brock with Media Matters that has a long history of Schweitzer’s problem with the truth. I added the Media Matters link to his past history with bogus stories.

1 Like

To see the NYT in action on this subject just as Judith Miller is all over the place explaining her reporting on the Iraq War is ironic, indeed. Some folks at the NYT have learned nothing from that and other fiascos.

Since Fox is fair and balanced I’m sure they’ve allocated the same amount to paying for a story on Scott Walker. Right? Really? No? Nothing?