The New York Times did its part for the Hillary Clinton campaign (and President Obama’s legacy) in Thursday’s edition, offering happy talk about lost coal jobs in Kentucky, skipping over some inconvenient facts that would cloud the pro-Democratic narrative, while another story bashing Donald Trump’s tax plan passed up a golden opportunity to revive Clinton’s infamous “dead broke” comment.
New New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd gets results? On Tuesday Spayd pondered, under the chiding headline, "The Clinton Story You Didn’t Read Here,” why her paper didn’t cover the latest turn in the Hillary Clinton private server saga. Finally, the Times provided some coverage of the controversy from a joint convention of minority journalists, but misleadingly called it a "press conference" and skipped the laudatory cheers those "objective" journalists gave the Democratic nominee.
The ultimate night of the Democratic National Convention saw the coronation of Hillary Clinton as the first female presidential nominee, celebrated on whole top half of the front page of Friday's New York Times. Meanwhile, Patrick Healy and Amy Chozick did their best to both humanize and historicize Hillary, "who sacrificed personal ambition for her husband’s political career and then rose to be a globally influential figure....a prize that generations of American women have dreamed about for one of their own."
Ideological double standards on display in the New York Times: While it’s a “dangerous anachronism” for Republicans to appeal to conservatives when picking a vice presidential candidate, it’s apparently absolutely necessary for Democrats to appeal to liberals. The Times noted the distaste for Hillary's pick, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, among the left, but surprisingly also identified Kaine with the left. But it was all good for "the man of deep religious faith" -- and a perfect legislative rating from Planned Parenthood?
As he endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday, Bernie Sanders comforted himself by asserting his campaign had brought the Clintons to creating “the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.” You wouldn’t find those words in The New York Times on Wednesday, but they did carry this story: “Emerging Republican Platform Goes Far to the Right."
Over the next two weeks, NewsBusters will be documenting the media’s role in fueling Hillary Clinton’s political career by showering her with adoring press coverage while smearing her critics as sinister and sexist. Today, examples of reporters cheerfully echoing Hillary’s attempt to blame all of her and her husband’s scandals on a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” as opposed to the Clintons’ own impoverished ethics.
The New York Times was extraordinarily slow to the draw in covering the controversial Phoenix airport meeting between U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Its first in-house recognition of the Monday evening meeting took place Thursday evening, over 48 hours after the first media reports of it had appeared. That report by Mark Lander was relegated to Page A17 of the paper's Friday print edition.
In the wake of Congress's official report on the Benghazi massacre, the front page of the New York Times Wednesday eagerly absolved Hillary Clinton of any fault in the attack in Libya that killed four Americans: “Benghazi Panel Finds No Misdeeds by Clinton.” The paper’s inside-the-paper analysis by Mark Landler and Amy Chozick found further vindication, not addressing Hillary Clinton’s moral culpability in the attack but merely treating it as a partisan victory for the Democratic Party’s nominee, just one more hurdle to get past on the way to the presidency: “An 800-Page Report Down, and a Server of Emails to Go.”
New York Times Hillary-beat reporter Amy Chozick matter-of-factly compared Whitewater special prosecutor Ken Starr to Inspector Javert, the fanatical pursuer of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, while blaming him for bringing “a new intensity to partisan warfare” in his prosecution of Bill Clinton, in Wednesday’s “Starr, Who Tried to Bury Clinton, Now Praises Him.” Chozick even suggested Starr's investigation was responsible for the Clinton administration being distracted from the threat of Osama bin Laden.
Hillary Clinton’s road to the Democratic nomination may be strewn with stones like Bernie Sanders, who won the West Virginia primary Tuesday night. But Clinton can always count on rock-solid support from her base at the New York Times. On Wednesday’s front page, reporter Steven Lee Myers mounted an “everyone-does-it” defense of Hillary in her ongoing controversy over classified intelligence documents on her private home-brew server while she served as Secretary of State: “Sensitive Email Routinely Sent As Unclassified.” Meanwhile, the Times and the broadcast networks have ignored the latest revelation in HRC's classified document saga: All the emails from Hillary Clinton’s top IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who set up her private server, have gone missing.
New York Times campaign reporters Amy Chozick and Ashley Parker played into Hillary Clinton’s campaign’s feminist theme in Friday’s lead story, “Trump’s Attacks On Clinton Have Calculated Risk – Gender-Based Criticism – Democrat, With Eye on November, Studies Ways to Parry." The original lead was even more slanted in favor of the Democrat, with Clinton called “a trailblazing woman” which was changed in the final to “the first woman to lead a major party.”
After Hillary Clinton won four of five East Coast primary contests on Tuesday night, the New York Times seems to be trying not so subtly to ease Bernie Sanders out of the race and clear the path for Hillary Clinton to waltz to the Democratic presidential nomination. Besides the front-page report on Hillary turning her sights to the fall campaign, Frank Bruni's column was titled "The Cult of Sore Losers," while Paul Krugman continued his surprising and sarcastic anti-Sanders crusade. "But never mind. As you know, I’m only saying these things because I’m a corporate whore and want a job with Hillary." Bruni still had time to call Ted Cruz "the Don Quixote of extreme conservatism."