Nate Silver (538) criticizes NYT/Haberman's reporting of Hillary's emails

[sharedvalues]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/maggie-haberman-and-nate-silver-exchange-barbs-over-2016-coverage/

Here's the key from

Link to tweet

Unlike some of the comments below that tweet, I DO think the NYT is the paper of record and generally worth reading. But their ability to be catfished by the rightwing media, and any media outlet's affinity for access journalism, hurts them. I wish they would just apologize to Hillary.

edited to add: Haberman throws some shade back at Silver.

[still_one]

1. Yup, haberman was one of the worst

[bettyellen]

2. Her and Thrush are working on a Trump book and should not be covering him now for that reason...

[JHan]

3. epic stuff.

Wonkette hilariously covered this as well:

https://wonkette.com/623439/new-york-timess-maggie-haberman-has-chosen-to-be-a-dick-today

[Control-Z]

4. Yup. Epic stuff.

Thank you for the link!

[Scruffy1]

5. The paper of record is still just a paper.

When they got rid of Chris Hedges for telling the truth about the Iraq War I quit reading them. Like all papers, they will do anything to keep up their circulation. No one should ever trust the media. All you can say about any of it is that it might be true.

[sharedvalues]

7. My take on the NYT

News section:
They are center-right on foreign affairs, and are most hawkish on the middle east and Israel.
They are center-left on social issues such as labor protection.

Headline writers are bothsidesist and often nauseatingly so.

NYT as a whole has been muzzled by fear of right-wing attacks.

Haberman/Thrush are courting access to the administration. Haberman especially can't be trusted on all matters politics.

I wish the NYT would start using their brains and start saying things like Kimmel did: "He lied to my face". Call a lie a lie.

Op-eds:
- Blow and Bruni and Krugman are really excellent and truthful and forceful.
- Kristof is amazing (except on 'chemicals', not sure why)
- Douthat is simplistic and rarely interesting; he barely had a real job pre-NYT and it shows. I'd put Friedman in this boat too, sadly
- Brooks used to be a right-wing shill; he's wised up but he no longer has much to write about.
- Dowd: eh. All puns, little substance.
- The right-wing talking point pushers: Stephens, Bari Weiss (+Douthat) - blech blech blech
- Michelle Goldberg: looking forward to her
- The economic/labor liberal writer...................... OH, THERE ISN'T ONE

On the whole: when the NYT writes something, you trust it. That's the 'paper of record' part. They are a great institution, but they need to adapt to the current hostile media environment where both the right and foreign powers are trying to exploit the US press.

[PDittie]

12. Good take n/t

[Hamlette]

6. They started it all too. In 1992 they started in on White Water which sparked the Hillary and Bill

are bent notion.

[sharedvalues]

8. Yup. No NYT discussion re: HRC is complete without this Pierce piece

This explores attacks by NYT writers from Safire to today:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a54602/new-york-times-clinton-coverage-book/

"Will The New York Times Ever Fix Its Clinton Problem?
The paper of record has failed us in this regard."

Love Charlie Pierce.

[brush]

9. Don't forget Judith Miller and Iraq. NYT too often gives platform to hyper-ambitious journalists...

trying to make their reputations, damn the facts.

[Skittles]

10. apologize to Hillary? They need to apologize to the COUNTRY.

[SunSeeker]

11. I'll never forgive the NYT for breathlessly reprinting excerpts of "Clinton Cash."

That book was a piece if shit propaganda vehicle by Republican Clinton haters with absolutely no factial basis. Yet the NYT legitimized it, reprinting inflammatory bits and pieces of it as a "New York Times Exclusive"---as if it was actual news instead of propaganda.