In the New York Times Sunday Review, chief Hillary Clinton campaign reporter Amy Chozick (who is writing a book on the campaign) tells tales from the makeup room at sexist, biased Fox News in “Hillary, Roger, and Me.” The story’s text box: “Ailes made female reporters look like models, and Clinton like a criminal.” Chozick’s distaste for conservative-leaning television was apparent. She implied that it was just a shame that “poetic justice” wasn’t served, and that Hillary Clinton didn’t bring down Trump and Ailes herself.
The New York Times is getting awful cocky about big Democratic victories on November 7. One of the two leading stories on the front of Monday’s paper: “Obama Targets G.O.P. Control of Statehouses.” The other lead story found no worries for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the home stretch: “Victory In Sight, Clinton Presses Beyond Trump – Appeals to Vote Early – With Lead in the Polls, She Turns to Backing Other Democrats.”
The New York Times coverage of the final presidential debate was dominated by what it termed “a remarkable statement that seemed to cast doubt on American democracy” -- Trump’s refusal to state he would accept the results of next month’s presidential election, along with a cutting front-page opinion on how Hillary flustered Trump. There was also another ideologically slanted fact-check of the debate.
On her MSNBC show on Wednesday, anchor Andrea Mitchell referred to the leaked e-mails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta as “an incredible, rich narrative of what was going on inside the campaign” but then asked New York Times reporter Amy Chozick “what do we see as the really, you know, smoking guns, if you will, in these e-mails?”
The second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis on Sunday night was widely seen as a decent performance by Donald Trump, but the New York Times frantically spun away from Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton for enabling her husband’s treatment of women. The NYT's Haberman dismissed a press conference of women accusing Bill Clinton of sexual assaults: “If anyone was wondering how ugly tonight is going to get, Trump just answered it." The Times' fact-checking also found Trump's debate claims false by a staggering 13:1 ratio.
The New York Times played preemptive defense for Hillary Clinton as Trump telegraphed a possible hit on Bill Clinton’s dark sexual past, with the Times dismissing claims of sexual assaults by Bill Clinton as "disputed" and trying hard to turn the tables on Trump and his past infidelities:"...he also contended that infidelity was 'never a problem' during his three marriages, though his first ended in an ugly divorce after Mr. Trump began a relationship with the woman who became his second wife."
During the first presidential debate Monday night, Hillary Clinton brought up a two-decade old Donald Trump “controversy” over complaints he made about Miss Universe 1996, Alicia Machado, regarding her post-pageant weight gain. Trump took the bait, and the New York Times eagerly glorified Machado, carrying water for the Clinton campaign while burying unflattering details from Machado’s past. Republican citizens could only dream of such coverage when they dare attack Democrats.
On Monday's Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, host Mitchell displayed the latest example of a journalist trying to push blame for Hillary Clinton's history of being secretive onto her political opponents "beating up on her" and causing her to feel the need to be defensive. During a discussion of Clinton withholding from the press that she had pneumonia, thus leading it to be a surprise when she fainted during a 9/11 commemoration, Mitchell wondered if pressure from Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani made her be secretive about it.
Imagine if 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had spent almost all of his campaigning efforts hobnobbing with rich donors to the virtual exclusion of public appearances. The press would have mercilessly pounded him for fitting the "they only care about the one percent" GOP stereotype.
The New York Times has noticed that 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been doing exactly what would subject any Republican presidential candidate to withering criticism. Saturday evening, in a story which appeared in on the front page of Sunday's print edition, reporters Amy Chozick and Jonathan Martin desperately tried damage control, while perhaps sending a warning to Team Clinton that, with the polls tightening, they need to get their candidate out more.
The New York Times’ chief Hillary-following reporter Amy Chozick delivered some unfiltered Clinton campaign propaganda in Tuesday’s “'Conspiracy’ Validation Seen by Clinton Camp,” vindicating Hillary’s notorious late-90s paranoia about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” taking on the innocent, scandal-free First Couple, with Chozick defending the claim as "not entirely baseless."
Hillary Clinton evidently doesn’t actually commit scandalous or criminal behavior, she merely is pressed by questions that passively “shadow” her and “follow” her presidential campaign. That’s the tone of recent New York Times scandal coverage on Clinton’s various controveries involving her foudation and her handling of classified documents, both of which have gained new life with a big new batch of previously undisclosed emails.
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.