Thread by @HoarseWisperer

This article is crap.

Since Jonathan Chait saw fit to slather us in this unctuous dross, I can afford to devote a few words to its myriad fictions, falsehoods, errors and oversights.

Here we go.

1/

nymag.com/intelligencer/…

This is a flat-out fiction which fails on both a superficial level and, more importantly, demonstrates a lack of insight into Trump’s psyche *at all*.

A profound narcissist raging at you doesn’t mean they hate you. It means they’re upset at you right that minute.

2/

The fact that Trump only occasionally gripes about Haberman indicates the very opposite of Chait’s premise.

If you can count a narc’s gripes on one hand, they don’t hate someone.

Trump doesn’t loathe Haberman.

The vast majority of days, he is downright fine with her.

3/

Chait appears to confuse Trump for a rational, heathy person.

A narcissist’s stated feelings don’t mean a damn thing.

Their actions do though.

Trump continues to give Haberman interviews.

Ever see Trump give Jim Acosta an interview? Pack a lunch. You’ll die waiting.

4/

No, Mr. Chait, the problem doesn’t stem from us on the left not knowing how straight reporting works.

The problem is that Haberman’s reporting is often deferential, accommodating and bent on tiptoing around the blunt truth in an effort to not overly offend her subject/host.

5/

This is true. And this is very much the problem.

For every impressive scoop, there are an endless array of stories that spin whispered White House gossip into “news” despite that being the stock and trade of a Politico not a New York Times.

6/

Volume is not quality. Word count is not meaningful contribution.

If quantity was the most important measure of quality, McDonald’s would be the best restaurant in the country.

A prolific access journalist is still an access journalist.

The NYT is not McDonalds.

7/

Somehow left untouched in Chait’s reputational spa treatment:

1) Haberman’s thin skin - she rejects criticism; engages in petulant back-and-forths on Twitter; and claims to have left the platform

2) Haberman & Thrush are double-dipping - their book deal is public knowledge.

8/

Comey, McCabe, Preet Bharara, et al, all wrote books.

None wrote them *while being paid to work for or with Trump*.

Haberman and Thrush are writing a book which is only as valuable as their access.

‘Straight reporters’ with a straight conflict of interest.

Chait skipped that.

The New York Times, at its best, is a paper that produces soaring pieces like the Pulitzer-winning exposé on the Trump family finances.

It is a paper we actually *need* to be excellent.

The seat Haberman occupies is perhaps its most vital right now.

10/

Far, far too often, what we get foisted on us by the person in that seat, Maggie Haberman, delicately tiptoes around the unvarnished telling of obvious truths.

Like Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee, Haberman has found a way to please the narc enough to be kept around.

11/

A narcissist who is okay with you being around is a narcissist you’re serving - whether you know that or not and whether you believe that or not.

No, Jonathan, our criticisms aren’t unfounded.

No, they aren’t out of ignorance.

Like, Maggie, you could stand to listen more.

//