When you put Maggie Haberman's fictional reporting about Hillary Clinton's email scandal within the context of her decision to sit on the fact that Donald Trump was flushing documents down the White House toilet, you can ALMOST argue that Haberman criminally conspired with Trump.
Trump committed a crime. Haberman knew about it but failed to report it or tell the authorities, which means at the least she helped cover it up. Now it turns out she sat on her knowledge of Trump's crimes so she could personally profit from it with a book long after the fact.
Given that when Haberman learned about Hillary Clinton's handling of documents, she swiftly reported it AND falsely characterized it as having been a crime, she can't now argue that she had legitimate journalistic reasons for sitting on the information about Trump's actual crime.
If you take away the part about Haberman just happening to write for the New York Times, are her actions any different than the average Trump political henchman? She covered up a Trump crime and is now seeking to profit from it.
Haberman isn't the exception, she's the rule. Most of political "journalism" consists of getting information from people who are dirty, using it to advance your journalism career, protecting the people giving you information, and justifying it by labeling them "sources."
Not in any way suggesting Haberman should be criminally investigated. We don't need that precedent. And besides, you'd probably have to lock up half the "political journalism" industry. It's up to the public to hold dirty journalism accountable.
The real problem isn't when reporters cover up criminal behavior in exchange for inside information. It's how reporters cover people who aren't feeding them inside info. If Hillary had been trading editorial favors with Haberman, would the "email scandal" have even been reported?
Just about every puff piece you've ever read about a political figure in a major news outlet was the result of some kind of editorial favor trading. You give the media dirt on someone else, or access to something, and they write a puff piece about you.
How far downhill has the journalism industry gone? Woodward and Bernstein took Nixon down in real time. But even Woodward sat on crucial information about Trump for a year, so he could save it for his book. Which leads us to the real problem.
Book deals dictate the political journalism and punditry industry. However much a journalist makes from their day job, the real money is in periodically writing a book. Millions of dollars at stake. And you need dirt to promote it, so you sit on things the public needed to know.
Haberman's or Woodward's refusal to report crucial Trump stories because they wanted to cash in with a book later, is no different than John Bolton's refusal to testify at Trump's impeachment because he wanted to save it for a book. Same exact motivation.
It's one thing for us to accept that political journalists must trade dirty favors with dirty people in order to educate the public about dirty scandals. That's cringey, but maybe necessary. But saving dirt for a book means you're miseducating the public.
But again, the real problem isn't that the media protected Trump and his people because they were trading editorial favors. It's that the media has no problem chasing ratings by flat out lying about someone like Biden or Hillary, who doesn't trade editorial favors with them.
The mainstream media spent every day of the 2016 election lying about Hillary's emails in the pursuit of ratings. The media has spent the past several months dishonestly covering Biden for that same reason. If the media were honest, there would be no Trump to begin with.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
