,
25 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Thread on The New York Times
In the wake of yesterday’s @nytimes article about a former colleague of mine, I want to use it as an opportunity to expand on one aspect of my criticism of them: their obsession with and bias against anyone named Clinton.
thedailybeast.com/new-york-times…
In the wake of yesterday’s @nytimes article about a former colleague of mine, I want to use it as an opportunity to expand on one aspect of my criticism of them: their obsession with and bias against anyone named Clinton.
thedailybeast.com/new-york-times…
2/
When I criticize the NYT I make a distinction between its reporters, its editors, its leadership, its ownership.
While my criticisms of the paper are severe, I don’t direct it at the reporters. Why? Because I know most of them. Over 17 years in DC I’ve interacted with most.
When I criticize the NYT I make a distinction between its reporters, its editors, its leadership, its ownership.
While my criticisms of the paper are severe, I don’t direct it at the reporters. Why? Because I know most of them. Over 17 years in DC I’ve interacted with most.
3/
I believe the @nytimes has an institutional bias against Bill & Hillary Clinton. Which is odd since they are editorially likeminded and have endorsed them both multiple times.
Despite the clear bias, I can only name maybe five of its reporters who have exhibited it.
I believe the @nytimes has an institutional bias against Bill & Hillary Clinton. Which is odd since they are editorially likeminded and have endorsed them both multiple times.
Despite the clear bias, I can only name maybe five of its reporters who have exhibited it.
4/
@nytimes reporters as a group are some of the best in journalism. By and large they’re professional, and even in an adversarial based relationship can be pleasures to work with.
I’m certain I have nicer things to say about most of them then some (legitimately) have about me.
@nytimes reporters as a group are some of the best in journalism. By and large they’re professional, and even in an adversarial based relationship can be pleasures to work with.
I’m certain I have nicer things to say about most of them then some (legitimately) have about me.
5/
I don’t want to litigate with the Internet exactly who’s been nice and who’s been naughty. I’m not wading into that morass.
But look at the story involving @neeratanden. Even without including her mother it was lame. Calling her mom was out of bounds even for lesser papers.
I don’t want to litigate with the Internet exactly who’s been nice and who’s been naughty. I’m not wading into that morass.
But look at the story involving @neeratanden. Even without including her mother it was lame. Calling her mom was out of bounds even for lesser papers.
6/
95% of the reporters at the NYT knows it was out of bounds. You know how I know that? Four reasons:
1) 95% of them have never done anything like that.
2) 95% never will.
3) They see that essentially nobody outside the paper has defended them.
4) 95% aren’t bad or stupid.
95% of the reporters at the NYT knows it was out of bounds. You know how I know that? Four reasons:
1) 95% of them have never done anything like that.
2) 95% never will.
3) They see that essentially nobody outside the paper has defended them.
4) 95% aren’t bad or stupid.
7/
Several of them have defended the two reporters who wrote the story. It’s not uncommon in any workplace to circle the wagons for colleagues.
But there’s a constructive way to do so, and unless I missed it none were. They were defiant, contemptuous and devoid of explanation.
Several of them have defended the two reporters who wrote the story. It’s not uncommon in any workplace to circle the wagons for colleagues.
But there’s a constructive way to do so, and unless I missed it none were. They were defiant, contemptuous and devoid of explanation.
8/
So how does a newsroom full of thoughtful & conscientious journalists produce so much fodder for the world to criticize?
Here’s how: the NYT knows its station in the media universe. They know they still set the tone and are emulated. They do so with their coveted front page.
So how does a newsroom full of thoughtful & conscientious journalists produce so much fodder for the world to criticize?
Here’s how: the NYT knows its station in the media universe. They know they still set the tone and are emulated. They do so with their coveted front page.
9/
If you’re a reporter at the NYT your goal in life is to be “out front” - meaning, on the front page. Anywhere else is a distant second.
They know they can’t get there with a story about a Warren policy proposal or Booker speech as easily as they can with one about conflict.
If you’re a reporter at the NYT your goal in life is to be “out front” - meaning, on the front page. Anywhere else is a distant second.
They know they can’t get there with a story about a Warren policy proposal or Booker speech as easily as they can with one about conflict.
10/
This phenomenon happens every day. Good reporters being assigned or pursuing stories they might not otherwise “want” to.
Sure, they have free will and can work elsewhere. But it’s the same across the media - just magnified coming from the most important paper in the world.
This phenomenon happens every day. Good reporters being assigned or pursuing stories they might not otherwise “want” to.
Sure, they have free will and can work elsewhere. But it’s the same across the media - just magnified coming from the most important paper in the world.
11/
None of the above is a defense of the industry or the NYT. It’s simply my perspective of how an institutional bias can impact otherwise unbiased employees who don’t harbor any innate disdain for the subjects they cover.
None of the above is a defense of the industry or the NYT. It’s simply my perspective of how an institutional bias can impact otherwise unbiased employees who don’t harbor any innate disdain for the subjects they cover.
12/
So let’s return to the specific story and how the institutional bias shows itself.
In this case it started in June 2017, when the Times hired Ken Vogel, one of the two reporters who wrote the Tanden story.
Vogel himself provides the evidence in this January 2017 tweet.
So let’s return to the specific story and how the institutional bias shows itself.
In this case it started in June 2017, when the Times hired Ken Vogel, one of the two reporters who wrote the Tanden story.
Vogel himself provides the evidence in this January 2017 tweet.
14/
A few things to note:
1) He is SCREAMING who he likes and who he HATES.
2) He’s absolving trump before trump even took office.
3) He regurgitated a favorite Right Wing attack so flimsy and easily dismissible no objective reporter would (or did) fall for.
A few things to note:
1) He is SCREAMING who he likes and who he HATES.
2) He’s absolving trump before trump even took office.
3) He regurgitated a favorite Right Wing attack so flimsy and easily dismissible no objective reporter would (or did) fall for.
15/
Now here’s the real problem with regards to the NYT:
When Vogel tweeted this he didn’t work there, he was at another paper.
And while this tweet is transparent he produced a steady stream about the Clinton Foundation, fundraising, etc. All were, to be polite, were slanted.
Now here’s the real problem with regards to the NYT:
When Vogel tweeted this he didn’t work there, he was at another paper.
And while this tweet is transparent he produced a steady stream about the Clinton Foundation, fundraising, etc. All were, to be polite, were slanted.
16/
It’s 2017. You’re a manager or editor at the NYT. You’re looking to hire someone for your DC political unit. And he’s who you pick? Someone who’s all but wearing an I Hate Hillary t-shirt.
It’s 2017. You’re a manager or editor at the NYT. You’re looking to hire someone for your DC political unit. And he’s who you pick? Someone who’s all but wearing an I Hate Hillary t-shirt.
17/
Maybe the NYT doesn’t have Google. They’ve failed to vet new hires’ social media writings. But that’s not what happened.
They hired Vogel BECAUSE of his anti-Clinton bias, not despite it.
Mind you, by June 2017 when they hired him, Hillary lost. But the NYT can’t quit her.
Maybe the NYT doesn’t have Google. They’ve failed to vet new hires’ social media writings. But that’s not what happened.
They hired Vogel BECAUSE of his anti-Clinton bias, not despite it.
Mind you, by June 2017 when they hired him, Hillary lost. But the NYT can’t quit her.
18/
I pretty much know who hired him. I’ll skip the temptation to name them. Suffice it to say that person was very much part of the institutional bias against the Clintons.
I mean read this fucking tweet. What was the person who hired him wanting, expecting, hoping for?
THIS!
I pretty much know who hired him. I’ll skip the temptation to name them. Suffice it to say that person was very much part of the institutional bias against the Clintons.
I mean read this fucking tweet. What was the person who hired him wanting, expecting, hoping for?
THIS!
19/
I will however name that person’s boss: Jill Abramson.
Yes, the Jill Abramson acting like she had nothing to do with l the NYT when she ran the NYT from 2011 to 2014.
Abramson pretends she had nothing to do with the NYT’s anti-Hillary bias. But she does confirm it exists.
I will however name that person’s boss: Jill Abramson.
Yes, the Jill Abramson acting like she had nothing to do with l the NYT when she ran the NYT from 2011 to 2014.
Abramson pretends she had nothing to do with the NYT’s anti-Hillary bias. But she does confirm it exists.
20/
The point I could have made in far fewer than 20 tweets is that you don’t need every member of an organization to be biased to have a blatant bias crisis.
Police departments with 10% of its force biased or corrupt taints 100% of the its work. Ask Chicago or Baltimore.
The point I could have made in far fewer than 20 tweets is that you don’t need every member of an organization to be biased to have a blatant bias crisis.
Police departments with 10% of its force biased or corrupt taints 100% of the its work. Ask Chicago or Baltimore.
21/
When the Clintons or their staffs have named reporters they felt were biased, they were dismissed as complainers.
One of the most notable is Jeff Gerth who was the NYT’s lead Whitewater reporter. Boy did he get it wrong.
Boy did he hate them.
mediamatters.org/people/jeff-ge…
When the Clintons or their staffs have named reporters they felt were biased, they were dismissed as complainers.
One of the most notable is Jeff Gerth who was the NYT’s lead Whitewater reporter. Boy did he get it wrong.
Boy did he hate them.
mediamatters.org/people/jeff-ge…
22/
You know how you know Jeff Gerth hated the Clintons?
In 2007 he & Don Van Natta, another former NYT reporter wrote a book about HRC called “Her Way” which was as truthful as a Sarah Slanders™️ briefing.
They harbored obvious hatred while at the NYT.
mediamatters.org/people/jeff-ge…
You know how you know Jeff Gerth hated the Clintons?
In 2007 he & Don Van Natta, another former NYT reporter wrote a book about HRC called “Her Way” which was as truthful as a Sarah Slanders™️ briefing.
They harbored obvious hatred while at the NYT.
mediamatters.org/people/jeff-ge…
23/
Another is a guy named Ed Klein.
There’s no way to describe him without being thrown off Twitter.
In 2017 he wrote, “The Plot to Destroy Donald Trump.”
He also wrote four screeds about the Clintons; screeds about the Obamas, Katie Couric, Jackie O.
mediamatters.org/people/ed-klein
Another is a guy named Ed Klein.
There’s no way to describe him without being thrown off Twitter.
In 2017 he wrote, “The Plot to Destroy Donald Trump.”
He also wrote four screeds about the Clintons; screeds about the Obamas, Katie Couric, Jackie O.
mediamatters.org/people/ed-klein
24/
Where did Ed Klein work?
For a decade he was Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times Magazine.
My point is twofold:
1) The vast majority of NYT reporters are solid.
2) As there were in the past there are biased reporters & editors hiding in plain sight right now at the NYT
Where did Ed Klein work?
For a decade he was Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times Magazine.
My point is twofold:
1) The vast majority of NYT reporters are solid.
2) As there were in the past there are biased reporters & editors hiding in plain sight right now at the NYT
25/
I haven’t looked at any replies to this thread. I imagine there are a lot of Don’t forget what they did with Hillary’s email! And Russia! And Ukraine! And Clinton Foundation!
Friends, I swear I have not forgotten even one NYT lapse. I just wanted to deep dive on this story.
I haven’t looked at any replies to this thread. I imagine there are a lot of Don’t forget what they did with Hillary’s email! And Russia! And Ukraine! And Clinton Foundation!
Friends, I swear I have not forgotten even one NYT lapse. I just wanted to deep dive on this story.
