The NYT very interesting response to David Brock's call for a commission on their coverage of HRC

[dsc]

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/24/david-brock-calls-on-new-york-times-to-commissi/204586


David Brock issued a letter to the NYT asking them to look at their reporting on Hillary Clinton. You can see its text at the link above.

Now without getting into the merits of his idea. Let's take a look at the response of the times as reported by Eric Wemple of the Post.

New York Times spokesperson issued this statement to the Erik Wemple Blog: “David Brock is a partisan. It is not surprising that he is unhappy with some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures. We are proud of that coverage and obviously disagree with his opinion.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/07/24/media-matters-brock-calls-upon-new-york-times-to-investigate-itself-over-hillary-clinton-coverage/

And you know, the Times has a point. The fact David Brock is a Democratic partisan and frankly a Hillary Clinton partisan is a very important piece of information in evaluating what he wrote. The partisanship of a person making charges against a politician or against an organization that has attacked a politician is fair game in evaluating what that person has said. So here is my question. What is the partisanship of the sources of these email stories and why won't the Times tell us that? They can still be anonymous but we should get to know if they are a GOP partisan or not. This isn't my standard, it is the Times standard on how we are supposed to evaluate what people say. If you don't believe me, just ask them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The denizens of the NYT should be above making tu quoque fallacies but alas they aren't

eom

[cheyanne]

2. Another example of their biased coverage is the latest cover of the NYT Sunday magazine.

This retro photo montage image in the anemic pastels is as bad as the infamous Hillary in the moon cover. Each cover plays off the stereotype/myth of the "many phases of a woman". They need to have someone who can deal with this kind of subliminal antagonism, since they aren't able to recognize it themselves.

[dsc]

3. You think that is bad prepare to be appalled

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/16/is-the-new-york-times-gearing-up-for-more-clint/202910



Meanwhile, note this Times-created illustration that was recently used to depict the email story, where Hillary Clinton, the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state, was actually portrayed as the Wicked Witch of the East, crushed by a smartphone

[oasis]

7. Mix Murdoch w/Modo and get a journalistic Mountain of Manure.

[Luminous Animal]

8. Whoa. That is awful. WTF.

[dsc]

9. quite something ins't it

I have to admit I hadn't heard word one about this despite it being four months old. Now just imagine for a second that any other candidate had been targeted in that way. Yea it would have been news for weeks.

[tblue37]

14. They think they are being o very clever, don't they? nt

[restorefreedom]

16. as a non hillary fan

i find this repugnant.

political cartoons always hit a nerve, but this was over the top imo

and i REALLY don't like hillary.

[dsc]

4. kick

[DemocraticWing]

5. I don't think there's an NYT conspiracy to torpedo Hillary Clinton

They made a mistake, but I'm certainly willing to chalk it up to incompetence. So many people are fleeing the dying print news industry, it's hard to get good fact-checkers at the papers any more.

[dsc]

6. really

I don't know how old you are, so maybe you don't remember the 90's and the way both Clintons were treated by the NYT. Dowd recently wrote her 100th column on Lewinski. They still have never printed that the Resolution Trust Commission cleared the Clintons of all White Water related issues. Then there was the war on Gore. Story after story after story about what a liar Gore supposedly was but each story was about how Gore wound up not being a liar when all the facts came out. And now we have the whole email stories. two stories on email and two stories that were full of crap. Oh, and just look at the cartoon further up in the thread.

[sadoldgirl]

11. If they choose sides though, don't

they lose the drama to what they consider a
horse race? In their shoes ( which I am happily
not) I would print great as well as detrimental
stories about the whole campaigns.

[karynnj]

15. it was not all black - there was by other reporters support

I got the NYT delivered back then. The first substantive I ever read on Clinton was a NYT magazine cover story that was really praised him as a possible up and comer. It also included lots of HRC praise. This was in 1990.

In 1992, it is true the White Water started, but it is also true that there were many many positive articles - and they clearly signaled that unlike Gary Hart, all the infidelity stories did not matter.

[ericson00]

10. He is right

I think the entire media needs a commission on how its treated Bill and Hillary Clinton since Bill took office on January 20, 1993. How many bogus lies need to go unchecked?

[Persondem]

12. Kick it nt

[tblue37]

13. KnR. nt