General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGood thread documenting how NYT Maggie Haberman shills for Trump
An excerpt:
That in itself might be a coincidence. What's not a coincidence is every time Donald Trump has got himself into serious hot water, Maggie Haberman has been on hand to lend a helping hand. 2011: Birtherism & Maggie runs PR piece stating how rich he is.
2016: Access Hollywood & Maggie runs a sympathy piece.
2017: Obamacare Repeal fail and Donald calls Maggie to give a world exclusive interview.
2017: Charlottesville "both sides" & Maggie runs "not racist" piece. Is Maggie Haberman a shill for Donald Trump? Has she carried water for him?
The answer depends on your perspective but she definitely relies on access to Trump World.
What I do know is when Donald is in trouble he runs to Maggie to get his side of the story out. For a guy who criticizes the Fake News media so much, it's interesting he has given Maggie over 20 on record exclusive interviews over the last 7 years.
I have little doubt "John Barron" was one of her many anonymous sources over the years. I could have included dozens of other examples in this thread but the pattern and theme is clear for all to see. Stating it's "impossible to independently verify" someone's net worth and then writing an article emphatically stating their net worth to be 3x higher than Forbes estimates, based on one anonymous source in the Trump Organization..
That isn't journalism. That is free PR work. Writing an article asserting someone is not a racist because he once dated a biracial woman and once had some black friends, while ignoring mountains of evidence of racism...
Read the full thread on Twitter:
Link to tweet
You can read the full thread here spooled:
https://tinysubversions.com/spooler/?url=
Link to tweet
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)dalton99a
(81,468 posts)oasis
(49,380 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2018, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)
be Trump's sly way of keeping her around so she can continue with her soft pedaling. The idea may have sprung from Steven Miller, since Trump can't stand anything in newsprint that isn't totally positive.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)The viciousness, toxic partisan anger and intellectual dishonesty are at all-time highs.
Can we talk about "intellectual dishonesty" - or did someone wuffle poor maggies feathers on twitter....
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)revmclaren
(2,520 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)She should step back
dem in texas
(2,674 posts)Judith Miller did the same thing, shilling for VP Cheney and Scooter Libby
peekaloo
(22,977 posts)neohippie
(1,142 posts)It's her mother I guess...
https://medium.com/@JamesFourM/maggie-duranty-80c8e85c5e88
Nancy Haberman, Maggies mother, works for the PR firm, Rubenstein, which was founded by Howard Rubenstein a PR legend, who was once called the dean of damage control by Rudy Giuliani.
At Rubenstein, Nancy Haberman is no coffee girl. Her bio lists her as Executive Vice President, and gives her history as Rubenstein, Home with kids for six years, Harper and Row Publishers, New York Post. Later in her bio, it states, Has a family of journalists. And the kids she was home with now have kids of their own. Nancys area of expertise: Traditional media, i.e. print, radio, and broadcast. Big emphasis on New York media. General interest stories, medical, breaking news, nonprofits, education Lends media support to other peoples clients with her relationships established over 30 years.
peggysue2
(10,828 posts)Haberman was not alone in the 'stealth campaigning' for the Trumpsters. This goes beyond the claim of but we must have access to do our jobs and rolls into willful cooperation. We all remember the shrill cry: but her emails, her emails when the Trumpster's history of mob ties and Russian links--though known and documented--were ignored.
Once the dust settles there will be lots of uncomfortable questions for these 'so-called' journalists.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)sandensea
(21,627 posts)Like all state media piglets, she's mostly just hoping to strike it rich by selling herself to these characters.
That of course makes her less a journalist, than a ...
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Though he/she cites a laundry list, none of them contain links to what was written. I opted to look at what she wrote on Charlottesville. In no way was it favorable to Trump. Here are three links to articles that she cowrote.-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/trump-charlottesville-protest-nationalist-riot.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-white-nationalists.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-press-conference-charlottesville.html (This REPORTS Trump's both sides -- it does not endorse his words. Here, the tweet seems to not understand reporting/journalism vs editorials.)
As to articles on Trump's and Hillary Clinton's issues during the campaign -- that is based on what her ASSIGNMENT was. She was covering Hillary, others covered Trump. Hillary badly mishandled the email mess, changing her story several times. I agree that there are many things we know Trump has done that are each far worse than how Clinton handled her email, but, given that there was demand for emails before she left the State Department, she could have avoided all that by handing over the work emails when she left -- not almost two years later after the SD "negotiated" with her to get them back. The Congressional requests and FOIA would then have been done and no one would ever have known about her server.
The NYT DID have articles that spoke of many negative things in the Trump past. They had front page articles on the racist nature of the Trump family's appartment business, the bankruptcies he had, the fact that he was sent to military school (and unlike many conveyed the truth that this was where a troubled rich kid would be sent) etc. They covered Ivana's charges against him and covered the Access Hollywood accusations and the charges of a Miss America. No, Haberman did not write them -- she was covering Hillary Clinton.
Haberman DID write an article on Access Hollywood -- but in November 2017. It is impossible to see it as positive because it addressed Trump telling people that "it was not his voice". The entire article actually calls his credibility into question - it opens the question of whether he is delusional. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-hollywood-tape.html
I don't think we want to attacking journalists who are doing their job reporting the news. That is where Trump is calling everyone people like Sean Hannity - fake news.
jayschool2013
(2,312 posts)The other issue here is how news organizations divide coverage responsibilities. Just as an example, my job (a long time ago) was to cover the University of Florida athletic department. In the late 1980s, various Gators and coaches were involved in several nefarious goings-on that made them a part of an NCAA investigation, a DEA investigation, an FBI investigation into a prostitution ring, and an OEO investigation into sexual harassment.
While I was a part of the team that investigated the various shenanigans, my byline never appeared on the most salacious stories because of the fear that I would be shut out of the day-to-day coverage of the athletics department. When someone from the AD came to me to ask what the newspaper was doing to them, I could just shrug my shoulders and say it was out of my hands. "I'm just here to cover the games and the athletes," I'd say.
Not saying that's the Times' situation, but it is relatively common practice among large organizations. I know the Times is being aggressive with its investigations of the dumpster fire that is the White House, and even if Maggie's byline isn't on those most aggressive stories, it doesn't mean that she's not a part of them.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)That must have been a tumultuous time to be covering that college!
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)More propaganda, more shilling, more normalization.