Supplemental: A world in which only one side complains!

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2015

What Hannity viewers were told:
We’re on our way back to our sprawling campus. Full services resume tomorrow.

In the meantime, consider what happens in a world where only one side complains.

For decades, a basic pattern has obtained with respect to the political reporting of newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Conservative pundits attack such papers, accusing them of “liberal bias” in their political coverage.

By way of contrast, liberal pundits have routinely accepted the work of the Post and the Times, even as they have engaged in decades of faulty attacks on Candidates Clinton, Clinton and Gore.

As a result, voters hear criticisms of conservative figures mocked and explained away. Attacks on the Clintons, no matter how poorly founded, are accepted with barely a word of negative comment.

Sometimes, these poorly-founded attacks on the Clintons are even vouched for by liberal journalists! But then, the careers and the social standing of liberal journalists are connected to the Times and other such news orgs in an array of ways.

In front-page reports in the past few months, the Times has savaged Candidate Clinton and her greedy, dishonorable husband. Leading liberals have left these peculiar reports unchallenged, or have even vouched for the Times’ analyses.

Needless to say, that isn’t what happened when the Times published a pair of recent critical reports about Candidate Rubio. In those instances, conservatives pushed back hard against the Times and its liberal bias.

In fairness, the Times’ first report about Rubio was comically awful, even by New York Times standards. The second report, a front-page effort, was weak in a wide array of ways.

Earlier, two lengthy, front-page attacks on Candidate Clinton had been horribly awful as well. But those reports went almost wholly unchallenged. The recent reports about Candidate Rubio met with pushback from both the right and the left.

Consider what Sean Hannity’s viewers were told last Thursday night. Hannity began his show by noting the fact that “even Obama-lover Jon Stewart” was mocking “the left-wing Times” for its attacks on the glorious Rubio, who had been unfairly maligned.

This is the way the program started, with Hannity citing Stewart’s criticisms of the Times:
HANNITY (6/11/15): All right, welcome to Hannity!

The left-wing New York Times is facing massive ridicule tonight after a laughable hit piece that they printed against Senator Marco Rubio.

Now, they lambasted the 2016 Republican hopeful for making what the paper described as “frivolous” purchases. Even Obama-lover Jon Stewart—he couldn't believe it. Watch this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: This morning, The Times [published] a front-page story—front page! It's going to blow the chinos right off of the Rubio campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE BROADCASTER: After a publisher paid Rubio $800,000 to write a book in 2012, the senator paid off $100,000 in law school loans.

STEWART: You bastard!

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Paying off law school loans? How dare you?

Those may not seem like particularly extravagant expenses worthy of being a New York Times front-page cover story, but it's a slippery slope. It wasn't long before the Rubios were splurging on a whole house!

How is this front-page news? I can't think of a single person who would be bothered by this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: By the way, this was after a report that both Rubio and his wife got tickets from the police, like everybody else.
Even Stewart, an Obama-lover, had ridiculed the front-page report by the left-wing Times! Hannity could have cited other liberals who criticized the attacks on Rubio, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

(To watch Stewart’s full commentary, click here.)

Hannity wasn’t finished. As he continued, his featured a dramatic reading of one part of the Times’ “smear job:”
HANNITY (continuing directly): Now to highlight just how bad this smear job really was, well, we decided to have a little fun with this, and we have brought in the one and only Robin Leach— now, this is a man who knows a thing or two about lifestyles of the rich and famous—to perform a dramatic reading of some of the most ridiculous parts of this article. Let's watch this.
After the taped “dramatic reading,” Hannity introduced Leach in person. They ridiculed the Times report, substantially miscasting its actual point. Later, a Rubio spokesperson joined this discussion, making some perfectly sensible points about the Times’ two reports.

This was just one cable program. All around the conservative dial, conservative and moderate voters heard a familiar old story last week—the left-wing Times had been displaying its liberal bias again!

As a general matters, voters have heard this familiar refrain since roughly the dawn of time. Meanwhile, what bias has the Times been displaying in its peculiar attacks on the Clintons?
Very few voters have ever heard such questions asked. Within the career liberal world, such things simply aren’t done.

In truth, the reports about Candidate Rubio were extremely weak; the New York Times does a lot of very poor work. But in some ways, the front-page reports about the Clintons have been even worse.

One side complained, the other side didn’t. Our politics has worked this way for a very long time.

111 comments:

  1. Bob, you have once again proven that the NYT is the favorite whipping boy for idiots, regardless of political ideology.

    And crying, moaning and bitching about all the bias in the Times is a very easy way to fill up air time and a blog. Easier than thinking about anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the NYT weren't important, you might have a point. However, it is important. The NYT and the WP are responsible for a great deal of what reasonable people think they know about the Clintons and what they thought they knew about George W. Bush or the Iraq war. And yet these newspapers are only sporadically and gently criticized for this imbalance.

      I've paid money and would happily pay more to read more blog posts like this one every single day.

      (Helpfully hidden among the nonsense in the Rubio story is some stuff I'd actually like to hear more about, e.g., his fiscal hypocrisy; his commingling of personal and professional funds; and most important, the people who've subsidized his income while in office. Thanks to the disparate responses cited in the post, I likely never will.)

      Delete
    2. "some stuff I'd actually like to hear more about... most important, the people who've subsidized his income while in office. Thanks to the disparate responses cited in the post, I likely never will.)"

      Actually you won't because Bob disappeared the first
      New York Times article on Rubio in his analysis. But if you keep getting your "news" filtered through Somerby, you will miss a whole lot more.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html

      Delete
    3. "If the NYT weren't important, you might have a point. However, it is important."

      And what does that even mean today, June 15, 2015, in an Information Age that keeps unfolding? Not nearly what it meant back in the middle of the last century. Not even close.

      This is why this blog and its fans grow increasingly irrelevant as its author yearns nostagically for a simpler time he thinks he understood, rather than attempting to live in the much more complicated word of today.

      But fear not. Every age was full of non-thinking pseudo-intellectuals unable to cope with the present.



      Delete
    4. Your Howler ReadersJune 15, 2015 at 2:41 PM

      Shorter troll: I have no answer to Somerby's valid criticism of the Times' journalism, but look at this shiny internet!!!

      Delete
    5. "Look at the shiny internet created through a Congressional initiative undertaken by Al Gore!!! "
      FTFY

      Delete
    6. "The Times does tend to go overboard sometimes, and I’m not just talking about coverage of Hillary Clinton, although that may be in a class by itself."
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/public-editor/new-york-times-public-editor-margaret-sullivan-on-primates-of-park-avenue-coverage.html?referrer=&_r=1

      I wonder what the public editor of the NY Times means.

      Delete
    7. Clearly she meant to give The Times high grades for much of its campaign coverage so far. I’ve seen many deeply reported stories, focused on examining the candidates’ records and on the movement of big money. Two examples: Questions about Marco Rubio’s relationship with a major donor, and Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on an adviser with conflicted interests.

      Delete
    8. Shorter Your Howler Readers: I have no answer to the fact that Bob still hasn't entered the 21st Century, but I'm happy to live in the past with him.

      You know one thing that a real scholar of the media and its effect on our national discourse might have noticed is the explosion of "citizen journalism" as a result of the Information Age.

      Just had another example in McKinney, Texas.

      Of course, Bob certainly doesn't want that. He longs for the days when a relative handful of "gatekeepers" such as Walter and David, kept careful watch and fed us only the news we needed to know.

      Delete
    9. @4:01 -- not so much. She stated the list of stories she thought were exemplary and your suggestions weren't on the list.

      Delete
    10. @4:11 -- there is a difference between tweeting and journalism.

      Somerby isn't living in the past unless you think of the past as last week.

      Delete
    11. Hey, 4:11, since when is 2015 not part of the 21st century?

      I'm not sure, either, when Somerby claimed to be a "scholar" of the media. Or why if liberals like those on MSNBC refuse to ever criticize a story in the Times, its influence is waning. Or why it can't be recognized that waning influence can still be very, very large.

      You have all the earmarks of a paid shill, with The Daily Howler as your despised assignment for your brand of sarcasm.

      Delete
    12. How does one get to be a paid shill. Do you answer a "work from home" ad?

      Delete
    13. Your friend @ 4:01June 16, 2015 at 12:48 AM

      @ 4:15

      My comment was taken verbatim from Margaret Sullivan's column on the Times campaign coverage.

      You exemplify what I like best about the Howlerititos.

      Delete
    14. @12:48 -- when you're done playing with yourself you can join the adult conversation.

      Delete
    15. The career and the social standing of liberal commenters are connected to the Howler and other such internet institutions in an array of ways.

      Delete
    16. @ 10:11 obviously did not like her remarks @ 4:15 being demonstrated to be incorrect.

      Delete
  2. The NYT will be doing a story about Rachel A. Dolezal, the N.A.A.C.P. leader posing as a black women. Their headline will be "Dozezal is 50% As Black As Obama"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, cicero, they have already done three and they haven't demonstrated the all consuming "Obama consumes my soul" passion for the President which animates many of your feeble waking moments.


      Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor

      N.A.A.C.P. Figure Set to Discuss Her Race

      Rachel Dolezal Quits N.A.A.C.P. in Spokane

      Delete
    2. Go easy on the child as it recites the mrh talking point du jour.

      Delete
    3. @ 12:30

      Why is there a question mark after the NYT headline "Black or White?" The issue is not in doubt. Imagine a NYT headline "Global Warming?"

      Delete
    4. Why was there a question marks after the headline "Intelligent Life on Earth?" in the alien paper after their sole human encounter after visiting our planet was with you?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. @3:10

      Are you really the moonbat Bill Birnes?

      Delete
    7. Paid Shill Comeback #23: when infesting a combox, and when another commenter points out the obvious, respond by use of the "moonbat" strawman.

      Delete
    8. @ 7:03
      Could you please provide the first 22 comebacks? Could you also please provide the liberal howler chronological number for your prosaic post?

      Delete
    9. Cicero - back here at last from the bizarro right wing land

      Delete
    10. @AC/MA

      After six years, Obama. finally makes the sojourn to Capital Hill to lobby for a bill and his sock puppet Nancy Pelosi stiff arms him. Now that is the bizarro world.

      Delete
    11. @755 - I don't get paid like you do. Do it yourself.

      Delete
  3. When Hillary Clinton released her campaign logo shortly before her announcement that she was running, there was nothing but ridicule of it (even though it is just a plain vanilla unremarkable logo). Now Jeb Bush has released his logo. It is just Jeb with an exclamation point. Jeb who? He reminds people that he is so well known that he doesn't need a last name, while distancing himself from his family connection by not mentioning it. And not a word of ridicule from the NY Times or anyone else about it.

    Also, not a word today in the NY Times about the major statement Clinton made yesterday about trade, despite their complaints last week that she was avoiding the topic. Apparently, they don't particularly care what she said about it. On to promoting Jeb Bush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 10:27

      How do you imagine Chelsea's hedge-fund manager hubby Marc Mezvinsky felt when HRC lambasted her son in law's profession during her endless campaign launch? Did HRC speak up at the wedding when the preacher asked, " "If anyone objects to this union, speak now or forever hold you peace."


      "there’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay less in taxes than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80” HRC Roosevelt Island speech, June 13, 2015

      Delete
    2. They know it's all winks and nods.

      Delete
    3. @ 10:27

      "Surprise! Hillary Clinton's Big Campaign Speech Didn't Mention The Trade Deal"

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/13/hillary-clinton-trade-deal_n_7576812.html

      Delete
    4. @ 10:27 epitomizes the "clueless" supporters of Clinton identified by insightful bloggers such as Bob Somerby over at the Daily Howler as Hillary's biggest problem. (Somerby usually identifies media outlets as the biggest threat to the Clintons and Gores so for him to label a candidates own supporters that way speaks volumes).

      Any negative these Clinton supporters see becomes part of an unfair and universal attack on their sainted candidate.

      Here, for example, is some of the "noting but ridicule" heaped on the Clinton logo.

      http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/2016-campaign-logos-hillarys-bold-h-463337027977

      Delete
    5. Christie did block the bridge.Ω

      Delete
    6. @ 12:50

      ...with a pair of his pants no less.

      Delete
    7. "Also, not a word today in the NY Times about the major statement Clinton made yesterday about trade"

      Major statement by Clinton:

      "In her first detailed comments on the trade deal since the House of Representatives refused on Friday to allow Mr. Obama to negotiate it freely, Mrs. Clinton laid out a far more calibrated position on the deal than many Democrats and Republicans have taken. She declined to take sides on the Friday vote itself but instead allied herself with Democratic critics of the deal — without actually opposing it."

      Direct major quote:

      "The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress...to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible....And if we don’t get it, there should be no deal....I am willing to try now to see whether you can push to get rid of the objectionable parts, to drive a harder bargain on some of the other parts...Let’s find out what’s in it, and let’s make it as good as it can be before we make the decision.....Let’s take the lemons and turn it into lemonade"

      Of course I got this from the New York Times

      http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/14/hillary-clinton-urges-obama-to-listen-to-democrats-on-trade-deal/

      Delete
    8. Wasn't in the online edition I read this morning but I'm glad others got to hear about it, if only briefly.

      Delete
    9. Pretty courageous of her to come out for the best deal possible. None of the other candidates have the guts to take that position.

      Delete
    10. "Let’s take the lemons and turn it into lemonade" HRC

      If HRC, who claims to be for small business, decided to open a lemonade stand in NYC, she would first have to meet these requirements that she and her liberal brethren have created:

      "1) Register as sole proprietor with the County Clerk's Office (must be done in person)

      2) Apply to the IRS for an Employer Identification Number

      3) Complete 15-hr Food Protection Course!

      4) After the course, register for an exam that takes 1 hr. You must score 70 percent to pass. (Sample question: "What toxins are associated with the puffer fish?") If you pass, allow 3-5 weeks for delivery of Food Protection Certificate.

      5) Register for sales tax Certificate of Authority

      6) Apply for a Temporary Food Service Establishment Permit. Must bring copies of the previous documents and completed forms to the Consumer Affairs Licensing Center.

      Then, at least 21 days before opening your establishment, you must:

      Then, at least 21 days before opening your establishment, you must:

      Arrange for an inspection with the Health Department's Bureau of Food Safety and Community Sanitation. It takes about 3 weeks to get your appointment. If you pass, you can set up a business once you:

      - Buy a portable fire extinguisher from a company certified by the FDNY and set up a contract for waste disposal."



      Delete
    11. Are you seriously arguing that people don't need food protection laws? Clearly you've never experienced food poisoning from improper food handling or you would feel a lot differently. You are truly an idiot. Calling a food service business a Lemonade stand" changes nothing. Why didn't you call it a church potluck? God protects people from salmonella so who needs refrigeration or hand washing, right? No thanks to dinner at your house.

      Delete
    12. @ 8:51

      What's with the colic? These regulations apply to a lemonade stand selling only lemonade just as they do to a full service restaurant. Are you now suggesting that these regs should be enforced in a person's home kitchen? Would you pass any of them? Wouldn't you starve waiting six months to be able to serve a meal to yourself?

      Delete
    13. What a stupid silly troll you are.

      Delete
    14. "What a stupid silly paid troll you are."

      FTFY.

      Delete
  4. Anti-tribal Bob's message to the media: Be more tribal!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that is your conclusion, methinks you should reconsider without bias or prejudice.
      Or stick to your Dick and Jane readers.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the fact that Bob is urging the left to be more like Sean Hannity isn't ironic in the least!

      Delete
    3. The fact is that Hannity viewers were also told most police violence is aimed at whites and that not all police are bad are bad. This will produce societal change based on broad-based points of agreement. It makes extremely good sense to keep repeating variants of this obvious point. Cops are good. New York Times is bad.

      Delete
  5. The fundamental flaw of the entirety of Bob's analysis is that Clinton and Gore represented progressive interests. NAFTA, mass incarceration, welfare "reform," financial deregulation, routine bombings of Iraq..... Blame Maureen and Chris all you want for Campaign 2000. Say that the left was "sleeping in the woods." The left was left empty by Clinton-Gore and either showed no enthusiasm for Gore's 2000 campaign --- a confusing and lackluster affair if their ever was one --- or voted for Nader. That same left has every reason to be skeptical of Hillary.

    I'll now sit back and see the left get treated with MLK or Malala-like understanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment does nothing to advance progressive interests. Therefore you must be a "pseudo"-something or other.

      Delete
    2. Your Howler ReadersJune 15, 2015 at 2:53 PM

      Let us suppose that the Clintons and Gore are indeed not very progressive (it's easy to suppose, because it's true).

      Sadly though for chomskyzinn, it does not then follow that Somerby's criticisms of mainstream journalism's attacks on the Clinton's and Gore are erroneous.

      Yes, Somerby indeed seems to believe we (and the world) would have been better with a President Al Gore than a President W. Bush -- and will be better with an H. Clinton than GOP2016. But even if chomskyzinn doesn't agree (though nothing he's posted has ever suggested why it's not so), that doesn't mean that an unfair media war against Gore (or Clinton) didn't happen.

      Logic clearly isn't chomskyzinn's strong suit, making it sad, really, that he chose such a moniker.

      Delete
  6. The left is clearly not sleeping in the woods. Thank God for that. The left is doing what it should do with a candidate with Wall Street ties: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/hillary-clinton-wall-street-rhetoric

    ReplyDelete
  7. A break from Clinton Rules, perhaps? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/the-third-surprise/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    ReplyDelete

  8. Only one side complains?

    It appears all sides complained about the Rubio coverage and none about Clinton.

    Is that because the issues raised about Clinton (potential conflicts of interest involving foundation donors and employees, private e-mail accounts for public business, possible violations of agreements made to obtain office) seem a bit more serious?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The left has definitely come out of the woods. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-classic-clintonian-fashion-dems-insult-their-own-voters-20150609

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Clintons tend to insult their own voters, why are they so popular?

      Delete
    2. @ 5:06

      HRC insults her own son in law and then has him join her on stage. The answer is that liberals really do not listen to the Clintons. They just vote for them, unless there is a young black liberal waiting in the wings.

      Delete
    3. That's silly.

      Delete
    4. @ 6:13

      Did you say that bout HRC moaning about GOP POTUS candidates suppressing the vote in their states when their states have multiple voting days and her adoptive state of New York still has voting only on Election Day.

      Delete
    5. Cicero @ 5:24 is demonstrating Timesy behavior. Clinton makes a factual statement about the top 25 hedge fund managers and it becomes Clinton insulting her son-in-law. She didn't say they were worthless bastards, she described the imbalance. Not an insult unless you're wildly oversensitive.

      Delete
    6. @ 8:37

      Considering libs invented political correctness, being thin-skinned is their stock in trade. Do you believe Chelsea would marry a hedge-fund manage who was not in the top ten? How could she face her mother who gets $300,000 an hour to talk about her hair dye?

      Delete
    7. Cicero, as I recall, the last time we had a GOP 'Potus' (along with GOP Senate and House), he (1) invaded Iraq, based on false pretenses, the worst foreign policy decision in US history; and (2) led us into the the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The country was almost destroyed. Let's put them back in there so they can complete the process; great idea.

      Delete
    8. What false pretenses? The intel proved to be wrong, but HRC voted for the invasion. Why would you want to elect her to office? POTUS JFK & LBJ were responsible for the worst foreign policy. That was the war in Southeast Asia. 58,000 U.S. military deaths. The only improvement in the economy since Obama took office is that Wall Street has seen a boom.

      Odd that it took WWII to take America out of the Great Depression. FDR's programs couldn't cut it.

      Delete
    9. HRC didn't authorize the invasion. She authorized the president to do what he thought was necessary. That was obviously a mistake, but is on Bush, nit the Democrats and Republicans who trusted him.

      Delete
    10. FDR's programs eased suffering and helped people endure the depression. If they failed to end the depression it was because they didn't spend enough to stimulate the economy the way the war ultimately did.

      Delete
    11. Cicero, you left out the part that the economic meltdown was all Barney Frank's fault

      Delete
  10. I love Hillary and fully support her. But as much as I agree with the notion of Clinton Rules, I'm afraid whining about her treatment in the press incessantly --- others will get crappy treatment too, already are; always have --- won't change anyone's mind. It's preaching to a small choir of media junkies. It surely won't persuade the lukewarm or undecided

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand, you could be entirely wrong and it could make a big difference. Given that we don't know, it is better to campaign actively for Clinton and widen the safety margin than to shrug and do nothing.

      With friends like you, she doesn't need enemies.

      Delete
    2. Don't bother replying. Geoff us another shill.

      Delete
    3. How do you know the incessant whining doesn't hurt more than it helps? Sour grapes comes off as...sour. Friends tell friends what they don't want to hear. And if I'm a shill, I'm a Shill for Hil!

      Delete
    4. You are not any kind of Hillary supporter. You are a conservative pretending to be for Hillary while writing comments that undermine her candidacy. You aren't fooling anyone. Try a different screen name and come back tomorrow with a different set of lies.

      Delete
    5. "......whining doesn't hurt more than it helps?"

      Are you kidding? The right wing has been whining about the "liberal" bias in the media for as long as I can remember with outrageous success. You might say they have developed a Military Industrial Whining Complex, and goddam have they been effective.

      My God, all you have to do is watch the sunday morning political shows to see how successful they've been. Just this week one of the shows had Chris Christie on to comment on Hillary Clinton's speech. You can't make this shit up. Paul Ryan is a regular on the shows and is treated as though he is a serious thinker. It's funny as shit.

      Delete
  11. Nixon, Reagan and Bill Clinton all faced miserable press coverage and won two terms. I love Al Gore, but his political skills are limited and I don't recall his campaign being particularly inspiring, though I voted for him enthusiastically. Talented pols play the media hand they're dealt and prevail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, they have no choice. That doesn't make it right. The media is not supposed to choose our candidates or president. When they pretend to be unbiased while publishing propaganda, it is appropriate for Somerby to complain. We don't have to settle for a press that treats voters like citizens of a banana republic.

      Delete
    2. The media didnt do a very good job of picking McGovern, Carter in 1980 (Reagan was going to launch a nuclear war!!), Bob Dole or even their beloved John McCain circa 2000

      Delete
    3. What We the People think of the media that allegedly determines how we vote:,http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx

      Delete
    4. What we say we think of the media and how it affects our thinking are two entirely different matters.

      Delete
    5. I'd be interested to know how the same media that the public holds in contempt also brainwashes that same public into picking a candidate.

      Delete
    6. Go read some psychology.

      Delete
    7. Geoff, for example most people find TV commercials irritating, yet they apparently work. Not exactly the same thing, but I think the same principle is involved

      Delete
  12. Another stupid Times article

    Why It Matters That Hillary Clinton Wore Ralph Lauren

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/fashion/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-wore-ralph-lauren.html?_r=0

    Perhaps Bob will cover it tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 8:36

      Had she actually worn Ralph it would be cooler than that blue outfit that would cause any other mortal to sweat even in Siberia.

      Delete
    2. If she didn't wear Lauren why does the article have that title?

      Delete
    3. It is very obvious to me that then Time fashion reporter who also covered Bush's campaign favors the Republican over our Hillary!

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/fashion/jeb-bush-makes-a-major-fashion-statement.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fon-the-runway&action=click&contentCollection=Fashion%20%26%20Style&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

      Delete
    4. "Another stupid post about another stupid Times article"

      FTFY - you're welcome.

      Delete
  13. "In front-page reports in the past few months, the Times has savaged Candidate Clinton and her greedy, dishonorable husband."

    Bob Somerby

    In blog post after blog post the past few months Bob Somerby has failed to demonstrate that any of the articles that he alleges have "savaged" the Clintons have been untrue. At best he has been able to contest the accuracy of one fact in one article, a fact which, when first published in 2008, went uncontested for a year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do the Clintons prove they are not greedy pigs?

      The burden of proof is on those alleging wrongdoing. They have not made their case. Somerby doesn't have to disprove anything.

      Why are there so many conservative trolls here these days? Is this the way Koch money is being spent? To annoy legitimate readers of liberal blogs? Aside from being a dubious way to gain votes for any conservative candidate, this is an antisocial activity whose main purpose is to disrupt other people's freedom of speech. Not exactly in keeping with those who pretend to cherish American freedoms.

      Delete
    2. "The burden of proof is on those alleging wrongdoing."

      Wrong. We're playing under "Clinton Rules" here and everyone knows that changes everything.

      As the "liberal" Chris Cilliza of the "liberal" Washington Post wrote recently,

      *************
      Republicans don't need to prove that the Clinton Foundation did anything untoward. The burden of proof that there was no wrongdoing lies with the Clinton Foundation.
      *********************
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/these-9-words-prove-that-bill-clinton-still-doesnt-get-it-on-the-clinton-foundation/?postshare=7311434035671065

      Are you clear now how this works in the liberal Washington political media?

      Delete
    3. 10:01 - In your post, you failed to demonstrate what you claimed is true.

      Delete
    4. If we all know the Clintons operate under the Clinton Rules, and presumably the Clinton campaign knows this, doesn't it behoove the Clinton team to alter their media strategy? No one is being blindsided here. Whining about victimization will just as surely deliver President Jeb as Gore's lackluster campaign --- and running as far AWAY from his very popular boss --- helped to deliver President W.

      Again, no one likes a victim and sour grapes are sour to the taste. Nixon, Reagan and Bill all overcame media derision. So did W in 2004! Play the hand you're dealt and win.

      Delete
    5. Here is a tell -- no one on the left refers to the Clinton rules as something the Clintons do or believe -- they are the rules applied by the media to the Clintons. So, Geoff is a conservative troll taking his talking points from the same sheet as Cicero.

      Notice that Hillary Clinton is not whining about victimization. Neither is the left -- that is Somerby's point. Someone needs to have her back. These are media rules about Clinton, not Clinton rules.

      No one likes a Republican pretending to be a liberal so he can express lukewarm enthusiasm for the Democratic frontrunner.

      The Clinton campaign is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Today there is a report about how the campaign banned a British reporter from pool coverage, for being foreign press. People are asking why her campaign shoots itself in the foot by not permitting openly hostile reporters to provide the only version (because pool coverage) of her events. This is her attempt to deal with media unfairness, but she is being labeled as wrong for doing it. There isn't any way for her to do anything right when it comes to dealing with the media. If she loses, people like you will once again say she was a poor campaigner, just as you are saying about Gore.

      No one cares what you think of Clinton or Gore or W or who you will vote for because you are a lying troll.

      Delete
    6. I agree that the Clinton Rules exist and said as much in my comment. My point is, if we all know they exist, and if the Clintons know they exist --- and they obviously do --- maybe they should rethink their approach to the media.

      Or don't. That's fine too. Maybe that will work. But if you know a problem exists, why not fashion a strategy that acknowledges its existence and deals with it.

      Delete
    7. Your response is preposterous and a non-sequitur. I just showed you how the Village press views this. Contrary to all known logic and history, the Clintons are required to prove a negative. This is the way it always is with the Clinton manufactured "scandals". No matter how many times the investigation turns up empty with actual misdeeds, the response is that they were just too clever to get caught. They start out with guilt assumed. What precisely are suggesting they do? Confess, like Cersei in Game of Thrones and walk naked through the press pool? Cause that's the only thing that will satisfy these ghouls. This is a self-reinforcing dynamic at work, the press keeps trying to prove they are corrupt yet keep coming up short, which further infuriates them, which leads them to further increase their hatred toward the Clintons because as one pundit recently explained, their power looks diminished in the eyes of the public, and the press can't have that because as we know it's all about THEM.

      Delete
    8. Waaaaaah!! Waaaaaah!!!! Waaaaaah!!!! Politics ain't beanbag! No one cares about your whining!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. I'm not the one "whining", nor is Hillary Clinton. The press are the ones "whining". Pull your head out of your ass and observe what is actually happening. Calling the press out for their unprofessional behavior is not whining.

      Delete
    10. Inside baseball. No one gives a shit about the press. No one pays attention to them, their ratings are crap. People pick presidents based on who they want to have a beer with. Gore and Kerry were totally fucking unlikable and Hillary is shrill, wooden and takes 200K a speech from Goldman Sachs. Obama was appealing, W was too and so was Bill Clinton and Reagan and others No one, but no one, gives two shits about the media or about what you smarter-than-thou condescending twerps have to say about the media in your hyper "intellectual" circle jerks. If Jen wins the nomination he will beat Hillary because he is more likable. if any other Repub wins the nom, Hillary will beat them because she will be able to portray them as loathsome and she will be the first woman prez.

      Delete
    11. 2:48: Hey, tough guy! How do you think people get their impression of who they would rather have a beer with?

      Delete
    12. "No one gives a shit about the press."

      Tell that to Brent Bozell.
      **************
      Since 1987, the Media Research Center has been the nation’s premier media watchdog. We don’t endorse politicians and we don’t lobby for legislation. MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement.

      The Media Research Center’s unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive so-called objective reporting.

      Integrating cutting-edge news monitoring capabilities with a sophisticated marketing operation, MRC reaches nearly 203.6 million Americans each week to educate them about left-wing bias in the media.

      The Media Research Center is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax-deductible to the maximum extent of the law. The MRC receives no government grants or contracts nor do we have an endowment. We raise our funds each year from individuals, foundations, and corporations.
      *********************

      Delete
    13. @mm,

      Since when does a candidate for POTUS decide who will be the press pool reporter? Her Majesty HRC banned Daily Mail's U.S. Political Editor David Martosko. Why? He dares to do his job which isn't to merely parrot HRC's campaign talking points. If that is unprofessional behavior by your liberal standards you must share the same distorted understanding of the 1st Amendment as CNN's Chris Cuomo. Imagine the closed to public access and media the HRC Administration would be should she make it to the White House. Her administration would make the current one look as open as the National Security Agency's Utah Data Center.

      Why does HRC manufacture her own scandals? First she says she needed a private server for her emails at the State Department and use only one device out of convenience. That was a lie. here she is admitting she uses both iPhone and a Blackberry. If she lies about the little stuff what does that tell you about the major issues?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqITWnIKbl8

      Delete
    14. He is not a journalist, he is a political hack ratfucker with an agenda. You don't want that do you?

      Delete
    15. @mm,

      If you exclude all the journalists who fit that description from access to covering HRC you would be left with 5 year-old Noah Ritter.

      http://wnep.com/2014/08/04/future-wnep-reporter-young-fairgoer-steals-the-show-during-interview/

      Delete
    16. He was banned as pool reporter for being with the foreign press.

      Delete
    17. @ 1044,

      Sure. If he was with The Guardian the Clinton minions would have thrown their collective sweaty arms around him.

      Delete
  14. I am here to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for over 9 years and we had two kids. thing were going well with us and we where always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treated me and the kids. later that month he did not come back home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted traditional spell hospital for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he casted on him that make him come back to me. my family and i are now happy again. Thank you Dr. Aluta for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay. He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery
    Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. If a sane person claims media malfeasance is influential, a troll (generously, perhaps an idiot) will appear and mock the sane person for saying media determines outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Internet, ExplainedJune 17, 2015 at 12:42 PM

    If a sane person demonstrates a thorough case of media malfeasance against a particular candidate, a troll (generously, perhaps an idiot) will appear and mock the sane person because everybody gets bad press sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just as it is with the supposed influence of the press, everybody sees through the deceit of trolls and no idiot is swayed by the comments of an idiot, therefore rebutting trolls and idiots is as useless as media criticism is.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello Friends !!!!!!!!! are you crying that your Husband or lover has left you and your kids for another woman , you don't have to cry or feel hart broke anymore because i was in the same position till i heard about this great spell caster (DR IMONAH) how he has been help so many people in their relationship deterrent kinds of problems today ,So to me too i can boldly recommend DR IMONAH to anyone who need help. He did not fail me i also believe he can not fail you too ,..............My name is REBECA LAINEY , And i am from LONDON(UK), I got married with my HUSBAND for more than 11 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my HUSBAND started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me or the kids again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster to help me, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something good will come out of it. i contacted DR IMONAH for the return of my husband to me, in process of contacting him, he told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that the woman cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and the kids and also want us to divorce. then he told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, he casted the spell and after 48 hours after the spell is been casted my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still love me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me and the kids. it was the spell that DR IMONAH casted on him that make him come back to me today, so today I and my family are now happy again together. A big thanks to you DR IMONAH for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you all friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact DR IMONAH today at via mail (drimonahspiritualtemple@yahoo.com) you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay cause he is the only true spell caster that can help you . .....

    ReplyDelete
  19. HOW I WAS CURE FROM HERPES WITHIN 8 DAYS WITH THE HELP OF DR ODUGU MUSA HERBAL MEDICINE CONTACT DR (DR ODUGU MUSA)

    My name is Karin sabine i am from USA, I am here to give my testimony about a doctor who helped me in my life. I was infected with HERPES in 2014, i went to many hospitals for cure but there was no solution, so I was thinking how can I get a solution out so that my body can be okay. One day I was in the river side thinking where I can go to get solution. so a lady walked to me her name is kutrila telling me why am I so sad and i open up all to her telling her my problem,that i have herpes genital she told me that she can help me out, she introduce me to a doctor who uses herbal medication to cure HERPES and gave me his email, so i mail him. He told me all the things I need to do and also give me instructions to take, which I followed properly. Before I knew what is happening after two weeks the HERPES that was in my body got vanished . so if you are you are having herpes or any kind of disease listed below and you also want cure, you can also email him at:(oduguspellcaster@gmail.com)
    if you are having any type of this disease or infection kindly email doctor (oduguspellcaster@gmail.com) for cure

    1. GETTING YOUR EX LOVER BACK.
    2. HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS
    3. CHILD BEARING.
    4. BREAKING OF GENERATION COURSE.
    5. GETTING OF JOB.
    6. JOB PROMOTION.
    7. MONEY SPELL.
    8. SPIRITUAL PROTECTION.
    9. HERBAL CARE.
    10. BEAUTY SPELL.
    11. WINNING LOTTERIES
    12. Lost Love Spells
    13. Divorce Spells
    14. Marriage Spells
    15. Binding Spells
    16. Breakup Spells
    17. Banish a past Lover.
    18. You want to be promoted in your office.
    19. Fertility Spells/Pregnancy Spells

    I promise him i will always share his good news on-line for those that are having different problem to be able to reach him mostly if you want to be free from disease or get you love back before Xmas should immediately contact him via his direct email: oduguspellcaster@gmail.com or oduguspellcaster@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete