That is a most excellent piece of commentary by Mr. Chapman.
8 Likes
I just stopped reading MoDoâs column. I was sucked in last Sunday as the first part of the column seemed to be pretty much âHillary-bashingâ free but she was true to form in the second half of the column. Maybe not being hit on by Bill Clinton is the explanation for her HDS. Good as an explanation as any.
5 Likes
Letâs travel back in time to the many years in the '90s that the Times spent flogging the Whitewater nothingburgerâŚ
And then there was last yearâs âCriminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clintonâs Use of Emailâ story that landed like a nuclear bomb but turned out to be a dud that was revised repeatedly over several days, stealthily at first but ultimately with multiple corrections:
And the Times take this week on the Weiner story is utterly ridiculous, as if his situation has anything to do with the campaign or will have any impact on it.
19 Likes
Same here. The fact they still have her on their payroll speaks volumes.
5 Likes
But they arenât the friend of liberals and years ago they were the leading liberal voice in the country. There are plenty of newspapers in the country that push the conservative line of thinking. It is not necessary for the Grey Lady to do so in any form.
8 Likes
The Times hates Trump, if that is who you are referring to.
1 Like
The old Grey Whore leads by example. The others happily follow.
3 Likes
This really roils me.
1 Like
âShadowâ is an accurate term. It doesnât mean Clinton is guilty of anything; it means she is being hounded by the phony âscandals.â
3 Likes
Yup and even the movie and book reviews have gone downhill over the last decade or so.
You shouldnât read the paper if thatâs how you feel, but itâs been much more critical of Trump. Except for Dowd, every columnist has called Trump a racist and corrupt.
1 Like
As one can gather from the article, the constant use of the word shadow as a noun and a verb, make it appear as though something unseemly is going on with Clinton all the time. This, is the problem.
18 Likes
In this election, any news org that isnât being more critical of Trump is being irresponsible.
12 Likes
This is not a question of reading or not reading the New York Times. It is a question of how people can simply associate the word shadow or anything like that alongside Clinton, when it is repeated incessantly. This is the point of the article.
17 Likes
Ah, a leitmotif of shadowâŚHow Wagnerian, the gray lady goes BrĂźnnhilde. That would make Wotan MoDoâs Grampa.
The Luce publications used to sport this type of sneakery in their editorial content. Favored people had sunny outlooks and looked smart in their apparel while, you guessed it, clouds and shadow dogged the unkempt appearances of the unfavored.
8 Likes
âMaureen Dowd will never forgive Bill Clinton for NOT taking a pass at herâŚâ
Link??
HRC has been hounded by phony scandals, many of which the NYT has helped perpetuate.
Hence the skepticism of a number of us here.
12 Likes
âNYT has helped perpetuateâ Whitewater the Times overplayed, but what others?
1 Like
Hillary just gave a major speech on The Military and Foreign Policy, and coverage of it NOWHERE to be found on the front page of the NYT (or anywhere else that I can find.)
Trumpâs POSSIBLE statements that he MIGHT give in Mexico have the prime position on the front page however.
Typical. Shit Sells. Facts Donât.
14 Likes
The Clinton Foundation âpay for playâ is one thing the Times overplays to this day. The Clinton Foundation as the source of all the evil in the world is another.
âWhitewaterâ covers a lot of ground. Do I have to list all the various parts? Or you could contact Ken Starr. He should have lots of time on his hands since he is no longer employed by Baylor.
12 Likes