Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary Clinton’s War on Critical Media

Hillary Clinton’s War on Critical Media

If you come at the Hillary, you best not miss

Team Hillary has a sad because the New York Times published articles that were critical of the embattled former Secretary of State. Clinton’s response? Declare war on the NYT and any other publication that publishes content portraying Mrs. Clinton in a negative light, naturally. Heaven forbid a newspaper do their one and only job.

Never mind that the NYT endorsed Hillary over Barack in 2008, or that they’ve largely danced around the whole FBI investigation thing. WAR. The best part? That while Team Hillary is launching mortars at “hostile” press, Mrs. Clinton is publicly declaring she’s infinitely and sincerely transparent.

Tuesday, the Weekly Standard noted how the NYT recent editorial shakeup followed complaints from the Hillary Clinton Fan Club.

Ever since the start of the campaign, Hillary Clinton boosters have been complaining about coverage of their candidate in the New York Times. And today the paper announced that Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan is being demoted — or shifting roles! — at the paper.

As the Huffington Post outlines, “The New York Times announced Tuesday that Elisabeth Bumiller, a veteran reporter and current Washington editor, will take over as Washington bureau chief — one of the paper’s most prestigious posts. Carolyn Ryan, who was named bureau chief in late 2013, will transition to a new role as senior editor for politics.”

Hillary boosters are publicly connecting what they see as bad coverage with Ryan’s new role at the paper.

“Earlier this summer, following a series of faulty reports, I called on New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to take responsible steps necessary to reverse course on the seemingly institutional anti-Clinton bias at the paper,” David Brock, a professional Clinton booster, writes in a statement celebrating the move.

“The chronic lapses in accuracy and editorial judgement [sic] at The Times resulting in the dissemination of false information about Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton culminated in a front page story that the former secretary of state was the subject of a criminal investigation — an outrageous bogus charge The Times felt compelled to repudiate following intense pressure.

“I hope that with today’s announcement of new leadership in the Washington bureau this means that The Times’ coverage in the future will demonstrate a greater sense of accuracy and fairness in keeping with its own standards.”

If David Brock is excited, that’s a signal the rest of the reasonable world is screwed.

Thursday, Politico highlighted a soon-to-be-released book penned by Brock which accuses the Washington Bureau Chief Ryan of helping to turn the New York Times into a, “megaphone for conservative propaganda.” I’ll give you a minute to catch your breath because it gets better.

Brock’s book is entitled, “Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary Clinton and Hijack Your Government,” like Hillary needs any help “derailing” her own campaign. She seems to be doing a fine job of that on her own. But I digress.

Politico reports:

Brock, the former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader, takes aim at a top New York Times editor in a soon-to-be released book obtained by POLITICO. In the book, titled “Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary Clinton and Hijack Your Government,” Brock accuses senior politics editor and former Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan of helping to turn the paper into a “megaphone for conservative propaganda” by unfairly targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The founder of liberal watchdog groups Media Matters and Correct the Record casts Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom he tormented in the 1990s as a reporter with the American Spectator, as personal and political angels who offered him access to some of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors.

But he uses the book as a platform to attack the Times — whose editorial board endorsed Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 — over its approach towards the Clintons from the Whitewater investigations of the 1990s to the current coverage of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“As it concerns Clinton coverage, the Times will have a special place in hell,” he writes, claiming that interviews with current Times employees prove his case.

The 52-year-old Brock singles out Ryan, who directs the Times’ political coverage, for refusing to publish in full a Clinton spokesman’s response to the paper’s March scoop detailing Clinton’s use of a “homebrew” email server instead of her official State Department email account.

Essentially, Brock is angry the NYT had the gall to report the facts.

Needless to say, the NYT is not impressed. They responded saying:

A spokesperson for the paper — responding to inquiries sent to Ryan — emphatically denied Brock’s allegations and accused him of embarking on a politically motivated crusade to discredit accurate, fair-minded reporting.

“David Brock is an opportunist and a partisan who specializes in personal attacks,” Eileen Murphy told POLITICO in an email.

“We’ve seen him lash out at some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures and it’s unsurprising that he has now turned personal. He’s wrong on all counts,” she added.

Ryan, who on Tuesday was replaced by Elisabeth Bumiller as Washington bureau chief after two years in the job, is now focusing her time solely on the paper’s 2016 coverage as senior editor for politics.

The title change was largely symbolic, since Bumiller took over the day-to-day business of running the Washington bureau in January. Ryan, known for her unapologetically aggressive coverage of the candidates, including Clinton, is now back in New York full time.

Several Times reporters interviewed in recent months say Ryan, a former editor at the Boston Globe, is simply a hard-nosed editor doing her job.

“Carolyn Ryan has edited nearly every story I’ve written about the Clintons since I moved to the beat in 2013. She has always been a fair-minded, inspiring and brilliant editor who has never shown even a hint of bias (for or against) any candidate we cover,” Times reporter Amy Chozick said in an email. “I suppose being viscously attacked by both sides goes with the territory, but it is unfortunate that one of the best editors in the business is the target this time.”

When asked for details on Brock’s newsroom sourcing, a spokesman for his publisher, the Hachette Book Group, said he’d spoken to a “handful of people in [the Times’] New York and Washington newsrooms” but wouldn’t go into specifics.

Politico goes on to detail a handful of inaccuracies in negative Clinton articles published by the NYT.

The sense of entitlement coming from Team Hillary is expanding into all facets of political theatre. It’s no longer limited to the idea that Mrs. Clinton deserves the Oval office, a point made by Christopher Hitchens years ago. Evidently, Team Hillary demands lock-step cooperation from the media, at peril of lame expose a la David Brock or some other minion du jour. Because that’s just what this country needs — an even more incestuous relationship between the fourth first estates.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Essentially, Brock is angry the NYT had the gal to report the facts.”

OK, I want to meet HER, and buy her a drink! She MAY be my kinda gurl!

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | September 10, 2015 at 4:13 pm

It’s got a lot of warren to do then.

“Iowa Feeling The Bern – Bernie Sanders Now Defeating Hillary Clinton In Iowa

After taking the lead in New Hampshire this week (49-38),

now Bernie Sanders takes the lead in Iowa (41-40). Despite the Poll financiers continuing to prop up Hillary’s diminishing support by placing Joe Biden in every poll result over the last two weeks, Bernie Sanders now takes the lead in Iowa State polling.

Removing the Biden Paradox, the actual polls reflect an even more damaging reality for Team Clinton. Wall Street releasing apoplectic tears, MSM trying desperately to avoid the looming consequence.

The old bag attacks the good gray rag. Unusual.

Brock? Follow the money, Honey. He is funded by Soros, a major Hillary backer. Soros is behind this, with or without Hillary’s knowledge.

“Killing the Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary Clinton and Hijack Your Government” !

…Hijack Your (audience hint) Government?

It’s gone. I’d like it back.

Brock was once a conservative journalist.

There may be an inverse relationship between the clout HRC, Brock, et al have in the media and the size of the media market. Pushing around the likes of the NYT, WaPO, Trib, and LAT is one thing but in many smaller market newsrooms they might be surprised to hear themselves being told to go pound sand and find their bullying the next edition’s page one above-the-fold headline.

They’re a lousy lot to begin with and, issues aside, the now constant whining and pouting is inconsistent with qualities found in leaders, from Merkel and Netanyahu to city ward leaders and union heads. Lots and lots of people are sick and tired of seeing and hearing about them and the problems they’ve brought down upon themselves.

Stay with it Brock, you may be doing us all a favor.

Sammy Finkelman | September 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm

There probably actually were mistakes. It’s easy enough for a Clinton to catch people in mistakes because they probably leak false narratives or bad arguments to them.

And that also makes reporters afraid that something that
is true, could be a mistake.

In any case, there was a story today about democrats looking for an alternative – Gore, Kerry, Biden…

“If party leaders see a scenario next winter where Bernie Sanders has a real chance at the Democratic nomination, I think there’s no question that leaders will reach out to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Kerry or even Gore about entering the primaries,” said Garnet F. Coleman, a Texas state lawmaker and Democratic national committeeman.

Even if none of those Democrats were to announce candidacies this fall, some party officials and strategists suggested that Mr. Biden could be laying the groundwork for an 11th-hour rescue mission during the winter primaries if Mrs. Clinton’s campaign began to implode. Similarly, Mr. Kerry’s friends say they believe he would hear out party leaders if Mr. Sanders appeared likely to capture the nomination and they implored Mr. Kerry, who would have to resign as secretary of state, to try to block him.

The interest in senior statesmen and stateswomen is partly a reflection of the thin Democratic bench after widespread losses in races for governor, Senate and other offices in 2010 and 2014, which has left the party with relatively few experienced, credible presidential contenders, let alone ones willing to take on Mrs. Clinton. (The paucity of fresh faces even gave rise to a joking Twitter hashtag: #Dukakis2016, offering up the party’s 1988 nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis

They are not worried only about the nomination – about the possibility that Bernard Sanders could capture it, which, not being all that good guessers, and not understanding the electorate that well * , they have started to contemplate, but also how she would do in a general election.

* I think partly it might be they just don’t believe the political analsysis her campaign is putting out, how she is going to win delegates in the south, how blacks aren’t interested in Sanders etc…they may fear or anticipate an utter collapse.

    …”thin Democratic bench after widespread losses in races for governor, Senate and other offices in 2010 and 2014, which has left the party with relatively few experienced, credible presidential contenders, …”

    No kidding. That is why the Republicans have such a big, well-qualified field. In a more normal situation, one would have expected the Democrats to have at least some of the up-and-comers, but the party got taken over by radicals and it drove away all the smart people, including lifelong Democratic voters.

    We only have two major parties. Right now, the Republicans have the better position on nearly all the issues, and they took the House and the Senate as proof. In the process, they also seem to have picked up all the good candidates.

Sammy Finkelman | September 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm

Donald Trump attacks critical media even more, but he’s too new at it, has less influence, doesn’t use arguments about ebing wrong, and caves in or goves up anyway.

Isn’t this sort of like that monster in The Yellow Submarine that sucked everything up including the submarine and the scenery and eventually sucked up himself.