Fools for Scandal redux
by digby
There have books written about the New York Times' vendetta against Bill and Hillary Clinton but apparently nobody in Washington or New York ever read them. It's not as if it's anything new. Neither is the paper's willingness to swallow whole every story they're handed by congressional wingnuts and conservative career bureaucrats. They cannot seem to help themselves. Nonetheless, it's taken an excessively long time for the political establishment and other members of the media to admit/notice this phenomenon.
Margaret Sullivan, the paper's public editor, took another look at the latest example of journalistic malpractice:
With this most recent event as a catalyst, and reader concerns in mind, I talked to Times editors about their approach to covering Candidate Clinton. One top-ranking editor, Matt Purdy, agreed that she gets a great deal of scrutiny, but for good reason: “We are dealing with a situation unique in American history: A leading candidate for president is not just a former senator and secretary of state, but she’s also the wife of a former president and the two of them, along with their daughter, have a large global philanthropy.” There’s a lot to explore, he said, and The Times owes it to its readers to do so.
Since 2013, a Times reporter has been assigned to cover the Clintons as a full-time beat. Other candidates were spared that particular blessing, and at times the whole thing has seemed excessive. For Mrs. Clinton, it has meant that her every move is tracked, often to a fault. Separately, readers objected last April to the way The Times, touting an “exclusive agreement” with the author, reported on aspects of a highly critical book, “Clinton Cash.” And some observers make the case that there’s no substance to the story line about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email system as secretary of state. (I disagree; it is both a significant and telling story.)
Mr. Purdy and the executive editor, Dean Baquet, insist that this scrutiny is necessary and that it is being done fairly. Because Mrs. Clinton stirs such strong emotions, they say, there are bound to be unending complaints from both her supporters and detractors.
But I agree with this sentiment from a reader, Evan Hannay, who is troubled by some of the Clinton coverage: “Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate.” He thinks The Times should make “a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media.”
Last Thursday, I handed Mr. Baquet a printed copy of Mr. Hannay’s email and asked him to address it.
To that end, he told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness.
He went on to point out that back in 2012 they did a big story that laid out the facts about Benghazi (which also happened to exonerate Clinton) so it's not as if they have totally abdicated their duty. So that's good. I'm glad they were able to find it in themselves to actually provide true information to their readers. They seem quite proud. Let's hope they are able to continue.
I haven't hear that they plan to stop running whatever lies Trey Gowdy's phony committee feeds them so I wouldn't hold my breath.
.