Number of articles Maggie Haberman wrote or contributed to involving Hillary Clinton's emails, ...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Number of articles Maggie Haberman wrote or contributed to involving Hillary Clinton’s emails, between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2016:

265

Number of articles she wrote about Trump’s post-presidency relationship with Kim Jong-un or his flushing docs down the toilet:

ZERO

Link to tweet

[madaboutharry]

1. I don't get why Maggie Haberman is on TV so much.

She is a staple on the cable news shows. I find her incredibly uninteresting and very dull.

I will give her this: Her book Confidence Man has a great title. I am sure, however, I am not going to be interested in reading it.

[BigmanPigman]

2. She certainly has a monotone and emotionless delivery.

She is publishing the book in Oct so any info in the book can't be used by the Jan 6 Committee until right before the midterms. She is an opportunist and overrated in my opinion.

[agingdem]

3. Maggie is one of many reasons why

I canceled my NYT subscription years ago..she's not a journalist, she's Trump's stenographer, apologist, conveyor of "feelings" (angry, anxious/happy blah blah blah)...she's a phony posing as a serious person..I'm not surprised Maggie's a CNN hire...remember Cory Lewandowski?...

[hatrack]

7. Yep - while there's a bit of "Hold-Yer-Nose" regarding the Bezos Post . . . .

I was delighted to see the back of our NYT subscription.

"Paper Of Record" my pale white ass . . .

[gldstwmn]

25. They had Jason Miller on for a while. I think Rick Santorum still shows up once in a blue moon too.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. With Regard To Santorum...

...I believe they permanently launched him over the rotten things he said about native Americans, on air.
IIRC, he lasted less than 12 hours after he made those comments.
So, at least you won't be seeing him anymore.
But, what did CNN expect? A small minded big mouth with an ego allowed to bloviate on their time.
He was on there way too much before they showed him the exit. He was a continual embarrassment to them, and they gave him enough rope to hang himself.
Hiring him was a stupid decision in the first place.

[quakerboy]

10. When someone will reliably say what they are paid to say, you make the most of it.

[bluboid]

4. whoa!!!!!!

thank you for presenting the above information - it speaks volumes.
negativity is as negativity does - & Maggie H is just about the most negative journalist & media darling there is.

[dalton99a]

5. Haberman is Trump's PR agent embedded in the New York Times

Her mother actually worked for Trump

[BootinUp]

6. Good to know that. nt

[dlk]

8. It's especially sad when women are sexist

The numbers don’t lie.

[machoneman]

9. Had no idea she was THAT lopsided!

[NullTuples]

11. It's not the toilet docs, it's the highly classified ones he took home after leaving office...

[Cha]

12. More Tweets calling out Maggie H...

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Rt TY!

[Cheezoholic]

13. Grifters will grift

Theres been more books come out in the last couple years than one can count, on both sides. I havent seen an onslaught of "insider" books like this since 9/11.

[ificandream]

14. Those of you bashing Haberman don't know what you're talking about.

Has anyone looked at the list of her stories? She's been all over the problems of Trump. This is the type of crap the Fawks lovers peddle to criticize the media. I've seen articles that Trump is more worried about her book than anyone else's. (And I'll bet some right-wingers are all over this thread licking their chops.)

She's a reporter. She doesn't write to us here at DU. She writes THE STORY in an impartial manner. That's what journalism is. (FYI, I worked at a daily newspaper for over three decades and I edited stories myself.) And I see criticisms in this thread about how people don't trust journalism. That's the exact same stuff I see on right-wing sites. The fact she exposed Trump shoving the papers down the toilet isn't good? C'mon.

You don't know why she didn't do the Hillary stories. They may not have been hers to write. So enough of this social media stuff about her, This is a big story, one that Trump certainly isn't happy about. And you're criticizing her?

[Hav]

15. Why are the stories like flushing down papers

only now making the news? Were they saved for a book?
That's the point. She was fine attacking Hillary (again and again) when it mattered but saved unreal stuff like this to keep access to Trump and to profit from it personally later. What a disgusting hack.

[ificandream]

17. A story like that wouldn't have been held for a book ...

... and she did leak it out now months ahead of the book's publication. There may very well be more in the book, but the fact we know about this now instead of October when the book comes out says something.

Here &ab_channel=CNN" target="_blank">she talks about the story.

[Hav]

18. What do you mean?

If it wasn't reported when it happened or when she knew about it, then it was held back when it could have influenced the voters. And it's now making the rounds when she's advertising her book.

[ificandream]

19. The book's been common knowledge for a while now.

Ask her when she learned of the story. You think she learned it from Trump?
She did nothing wrong.

[Captain Zero]

24. It may be saying this is a limited hang out

As Nixon used to phrase it. She's getting some things out in dribs and drabs then when DOJ goes after Trump his sycophants dismiss it saying Maggie Haldermann had this out there months ago. It's no big deal.

[MrsCoffee]

20. "You don't know why she didn't do the Hillary stories." Say what?

Wtf are you talking about?

[ificandream]

32. Just what I said....

Reporters don't get free reign to do anything they want. They're on "beats" ... and they have to write what their focus is. People in the thread are claiming purposely stayed away from Hillary. The fact is she may not have been assigned to write about her. On a newspaper like the Times, reporters get certain things to focus on. I don't know what her "beat" was but it may not have been Hillary. In fact, given all the Trump stories she's done my guess is her focus is Trump.

[MrsCoffee]

34. Nobody claimed any such thing.

Look at the Original Post you replied to.

It says straight up that Maggie wrote or contributed to TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE articles about Hillary and her email.

In contrast to her reporting on Mr. Trump's shenanigans which has been nearly non-existent in comparison.

[ificandream]

38. Take a look at the list of her stories ...

... and tell me she hasn't written about Trump.

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/by/maggie-haberman|]

[niyad]

53. Reading comprehension is your friend. I strongly suggest that you read the OP

because it clearly does not correspond to what you are posting. The ZERO was about NOT covering kimmy and the F'n, murdering, orange TRAITOR**, and their continued relationship post presidency.

Try again.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. Thanks for the insight. That was probably retweeted by Popehat or Kevin M. Kruse.

I just posted it here as an FYI. One nit to pick:

You don't know why she didn't do the Hillary stories. They may not have been hers to write. So enough of this social media stuff about her, This is a big story, one that Trump certainly isn't happy about. And you're criticizing her?

I think what you meant to say is that we don't know why she didn't do the Trump stories. I don't subscribe to the NYT, so I don't know if Maggie Haberman is still their main White House reporter. Perhaps she has been reassigned, and someone else has that beat now.

Thanks again.

[PJMcK]

27. Excellent points

I was thinking of how to respond to the OP when I read your post. You've stated the facts more clearly than I could.

The comparison of Mrs. Clinton's emails stories to Trumps stories is a bit of a straw man argument as there's no similarity to the disparate issues.

If Ms. Haberman is trying to make a buck on her obviously hard work, so what? Who said it was her job to fight against Trump? That's really not what Journalism is all about. Besides, her reporting over the course of her career has been professional.

Great post, ificandream.

[ificandream]

33. Thanks. :)

[treestar]

36. So how many articles did she write?

You are challenging the idea that she wrote ZERO as in the OP - show us the articles.

[ificandream]

39. Look at the link on the Times site.

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/by/maggie-haberman|]

And I'll say it again ... reporters don't have free reign to write whatever they want. They work under editors. She may not have been assigned to write about Hillary at the time. Why is that so hard to understand? Is this just Bash Maggie? I think it is.

[MrsCoffee]

46. Why is it so hard to understand, indeed.

I'll say it again. Habberman wrote or contributed to 265 articles about Hillary's emails. If she wasn't assigned to write about Hillary at the time, then all the more heinous.

But this has obviously all gone over your head, because you keep repeating the same silly thing.

Good luck to anyone trying to explain it to you any further.

[ificandream]

47. Bashing her for no reason is a Fawks thing. She hasn't done anything wrong. She exposed Trump.

Turning this around is a right-wing thing. And it wouldn't surprise me if there's some right-wing dirt behind this thread.

[MrsCoffee]

52. Bashing her for writing two hundred and sixty five articles about Hillary's emails alone

and VERY FEW articles about Trump's actual crimes is the EXACT OPPOSITE of right wing.


But please proceed....

[niyad]

55. First of all, it is "rein", not "reeign". Second, as thee OP clearly states, maggie wrote

or contributed to, 265 articles about Hillary. Again, reading comprehension is your friend.

[uponit7771]

62. Gas lighting usually doesn't take this many words, we can see disparities in reporting come on man

[calimary]

16. I am SOOOOOOOOO glad this is coming out!

Last edited Sat Feb 12, 2022, 03:20 PM - Edit history (2)

Bias, anyone?

Frankly, I sometimes wonder if the motivation here boils down to jealousy.

If any woman was the ”Alpha” of the group, nobody aimed higher than Hillary. I’ve experienced this in a much smaller and more minor realm. Some of the worst potshots and sneakiest sabotage I experienced while I was still working came from other women. You’d think there’d be some sort of sisterhood of mutual support. WRONG! I had one department head warn me about a female colleague who viewed me as “someone she had to knock off.”

I think there was a shit-ton of jealousy and resentment of Hillary Clinton. But nobody can take away from her the FACT that she’ll go down in history in several really remarkable and positive ways. She's a giant of a role model for women and girls everywhere. But her biggest achievement will always be as the first viable major-party presidential candidate who was also FEMALE. The candidate who also got the most votes- let’s NEVER forget that one!

Honestly, the nerve of that woman!

[sarcasmo]

21. Andrea Emails Mitchell and Maggie Haberman two of the biggest Email reporters.

[Meowmee]

23. She is an awful

Terrible person. Supporting that psycho fascist murderer.

[ificandream]

40. She's hardly that.

[KS Toronado]

26. On a related side note, is this true?

Some DUer mentioned today that FQX has never reported on the 15 boxes of documents retrieved from Mar-Large-Ass.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. Nothing more needed to prove she has poor judgement than when she said TFG

was "charming" in person. Knowing what she and we have long known about him, nothing would cause me to be charmed by him, in person or otherwise.

[Hortensis]

59. But most people have always found him charming in person --

when he wants to be charming. The truth is what it is. He also reportedly appears intelligent and sensible when he chooses for one audience, while playing a very different character for "my people."

This is something readers need to understand about him in order to understand how he moves in the world.

Hitler was also very charming when he wanted to be; old pictures of him spewing spittle as he ranted at crowds give a very incomplete notion of him.

Notably, it turns out above average percentages of psychopaths are notably charming and charismatic, not all by a long shot but enough that it's a characteristic to look for. For instance in seemingly depraved people who rise to great power.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

61. Ah yes, well, my point urbtjğ1wȘ$"*,,, & *&, ',, &, &, &, &, & ***', *-'

Darn, I fell asleep while replying to you. I have insomnia & hadn't seen your reply until after I'd finally taken something and began nodding off while proofreading my reply to you. I woke up the next day to find my carefully composed reply gone and the reply title garbled, as seen above.

Anyway, my point was that while charm is a characteristic generally ascribed to people with certain anti-social personality disorders* not everyone is charmed by them.

Some people, either naturally or by experience or training, recognize the "charming" behavior as deceptive and manipulative, and are not charmed by it.

Knowing what I know about "the Donald," nothing he says or does is going to charm me.


*I'm not sure, but I suspect TFG is a malignant narcisstic sociopath (if that's a thing) rather than a psychopath https://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath

[Hortensis]

60. But most people have always found him charming in person --

when he wants to be charming. The truth is what it is. He also reportedly appears intelligent and sensible when he chooses for one audience, while playing a very different character for "my people."

This is something readers need to understand about him in order to understand how he moves in the world.

Hitler was also very charming when he wanted to be; old pictures of him spewing spittle as he ranted at crowds give a very incomplete notion of him.

Notably, it turns out above average percentages of psychopaths are notably charming and charismatic, not all by a long shot but enough that it's a characteristic to look for. For instance in seemingly depraved people who rise to great power.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

29. That the NYT is considered a "liberal" paper is more evidence

that belies the "liberal media" bias BS claim by RW hypocrites.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. I cancelled my subscription the NYT a very long ago

The NYT and Haberman did their best to elect TFG

[Lunabell]

31. Liberal media my ass!

We only get the information the rich and powerful wsnt us to hear when it comes to corporate owned media.

[msfiddlestix]

37. This report does not surprise me, it's good to have thr numbers. If accurate it confirms

observations/speculations as to what she's all about.

She may well be considered and referred to as "professional journalist" by some here, but I reckon there are a fairly large number of people, in the nation, who would strongly disagree.

[ificandream]

41. Reporters get criticized all the time for what they write.

They have professional standards they write to. You won't find them on social media. LOL.

[msfiddlestix]

42. we've seen those standards lacking everyday since forever long before social media became a thing.

LOL

[ificandream]

43. That's Fawks News b.s.

I worked at a daily newspaper for three decades and before social media. Newspapers have strict standards. They are also very quick to criticize themselves. Yes, even today.

[msfiddlestix]

44. Fawkes News BS?

I would beg to differ, but I can see that it's rather pointless.

have a good day.

[ificandream]

45. Why is it pointless?

Last edited Sun Feb 13, 2022, 07:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I've had experience "debating" lamebrain Fawks news fans and that's the kind of crap they say. And then they back out when their argument turns to mush.

[MrsCoffee]

48. Or when they realize that their efforts are futile.

Seems I'm not the only one.

And spare us that right wing Fawkes crap.

[ificandream]

49. I won't if that's what it is...

... and it is.

[MrsCoffee]

51. Don't accuse people of being right wingers here. It's bullshit.

You keep repeating the same ridiculous thing that Habberman didn't write stories about Hillary because maybe she wasn't assigned to Hillary.

SHE FUCKING WROTE TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE ARTICLES ABOUT HILLARY'S EMAILS ALONE. And Hilary did nothing wrong.

Show me the two hundred and sixty five articles she has written about Trump's actual crimes.


I'll wait right here while you call me a right winger.

[betsuni]

54. +1

[MrsCoffee]

56. Is that right?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Do I really need to go on? Reporters are all over social media.

I have no idea what you are on about in this thread, but I suggest taking a time out to re-read everything.

[ificandream]

57. Why the continual focus on Haberman?

She wasn't the sole cause of the coverage. The press as a whole let themselves overreact to what Trump was saying rather than forging the coverage for themselves, which is what should have happened. And the image I saw about people believing the worst rumors about Hillary and ignoring (more like bypassing) the facts about Trump is very true.

[MrsCoffee]

58. Because that's what this thread is about. That's how we have discussions on DU.

Why are you so up in arms over people taking her to task?

Go look around DU and you will see plenty of people disappointed in the mainstream media.

In this thread, we are discussing Haberman's bias. And the New York Time's bias.

You can be upset that we are criticizing people in the media, but you don't get to call us right wingers and repeat nonsense and expect us to just ignore that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

50. OPINION: The NY Times owes Hillary Clinton an apology

I cancelled my subscription to the NYT due to the unfair coverage of Hillary Clinton. The NYT and Haberman helped elect TFG

Link to tweet

“The 2-year frenzy over the emails was a political Rorschach test where everyone saw something different in what was ultimately nothing. Call it sexism, Republican depravity, ratings-hungry media, it’s time we acknowledge it was bullshit, and write that into the history books.” – Hillary Clinton

Back in 2016, their reporter Maggie Haberman amplified the Hillary Clinton conspiracy which Trump campaigned on. I and many other conservatives who supported Trump (including others like me who learned this was a mistake) did our best to get this to the masses to say ‘Hillary Clinton was an irresponsible leader and unfit to be President.’ At the time I was spreading this lie, I didn’t know it was a lie, and the fact that the Times writer amplified it, even more, made us believe we were right and this possibly persuaded undecided electoral voters to pick Trump. Little did I know that I would eventually learn that Hillary Clinton was exonerated of any wrongdoing, and I apologized for my part in spreading this lie.,,,,,

Maggy Haberman and the not-so-liberal media the NY Times owe Hillary Clinton a public apology.

We all owe a thank you to Nick Merill for informing all of us about a disservice to the public emanating from the Old Gray Lady when it suddenly began to betray its motto of publishing “all the news that’s fit to print.”

Link to tweet