One of their many in-house anti-Hillary hacks would have been more appropriate.
The new york times is quickly becoming suspect to me. WTF does this personâs personal opinions have to do with her ability to track down facts and write about them as a professional reporter? The short-sighted, reactionary bullshit here is pathetic.
Timesâ spokeswoman Eileen Murphy. âHer role in this story was to help colleagues in the newsroom gather public documents in New Haven, where Emily is based.The NYT appears to be stating that the 'writer' in question did not write the story; was only involved in acquiring background info. If that is indeed the case, why is the headline and lede calling her the writer of the story? And what, in fact, is the basis for criticizing her?
PS: it would be nice if WH statements were editorialized a bit better too since they invariably involve some degree of bullshit or blatant lying.
what a joke never saw one blazing Right wing"journalist" ever apologize. go for it right wingers. post one. lol lol crazy lying. VOTE them Out
FOX: Unlike us, NYT is not fair and balanced.
THIS is what pisses me off about the NYT. The WaPo doesnât seem to have this problem.
Good lord. This is what happens when nonsense begins to be treated seriously. It just begets more nonsense.
Whatâs the difference if she supports Kavanaugh or not? Facts are facts.
But at least the Times didnât rescind the story.
Why? They sure as hell didnât suffer any pangs of journalistic guilt for assigning Hillary-hating individuals to write unsubstantiated stories about her during her 2016 Presidential campaign.
Her tweet says
I strongly disassociate myself from tonightâs praise of Brett Kavanaugh. With respect, heâs a 5th vote for a hard-right turn on voting rights and so much more that will harm the democratic process & prevent a more equal society.
And somehow this is
trashing Judge Kavanaugh on purely ideological grounds
The only âtrashâ I see is an interpretation that sails past âtendentiousâ and sets course for âmaking shit upâ.
We regret she was the co-author, but we stand by the story. Protesting too much NYT.
NYT shoots self in foot.
What is going on at the NYT? They extend far too much deference to liars and concern trolls.
Doesnât the NYTimes have too many "CLOUD " stories to write attacking democrats to worry about the GOPâŚ?..Every time the GOP smears a DEM with lies and bs or god forbid thereâs an investigation within 4000 miles of a dem candidate they publish a dozen stories with GIANT headlines about âcloudsâ of scandal and âclouds of suspicionâ
in giant typeface of courseâŚClouds being a replacement word for âtotal bsâ and âno factsâ . Smearing dems without facts is the one and only thing they care about now days.
Really thatâs the thing. They talk about the left being âsnowflakes,â but any criticism or dissenting opinions â whatever doesnât conform to their worldview â is somehow a transgression.
As a former journalist, I can say without reservation that no journalists have any political opinions. They are also only allowed to publish after review by a cabal of editors who have expressed a strong preference for oatmeal without salt, and own box sets of Touched by an Angel (which I presume will also be the eventual title of a hagiographical biopic about Brett Kavanaugh).
The NYT has been a ghost for years. Stick a fork in them; their cooked. Let the Washington Post and other legitimate journalistic entities do the grown-ups work.
The NYTimes consistently bends over to try and prove to the RIGHT that they are not liberal⌠Iâve got news for them, you can stop you proved to most of us long ago that you are not a liberal newspaper
While it may not have been a wise move, nobody seems to be disputing the facts.
Kill Twitter.
