BREAKING: Hayes pretends to interview Chozick!


But first, what Lozada did:
Last night—actually, early this morning—we watched Chris Hayes as he pretended to interview Amy Chozick.

To watch the segment, click here.

The New York Times made Chozick its "Hillary Clinton reporter" in July 2013 [sic]. It was more than three years until the presidential election in question. But in its stupid, inexcusable way, the Times was going to hound this pre-candidate every step of the way.

In our view, Chozick did a terrible job as the Times' Clinton reporter. Now she's written a book about the experience, hoping to pocket some cash.

(She's married to a Goldman Sachs VP. As far as we know, that's legal.)

Last night, Hayes pretended to interview her about it. Assuming minimal intelligence on their parts, it struck as a thoroughly disingenuous performance by both participants. We don't think it's ever seemed so clear that Hayes has been lost to the world thanks to his job with corporate cable, or perhaps thanks to his general ambition as a "career liberal" journalist in an age when such folk must play nice with the Times.

(How much does Hayes get paid for this? You aren't allowed to know that!)

We expect to spend next week reviewing the Chozick tour in terms of her performance on the three-year campaign trail. For today, though, let's consider something Carlos Lozada did.

This Sunday, Lozada reviewed Chozick's book on page one of the Washington Post's Outlook section. Basically, he fingered Chozick as a self-absorbed lightweight, which of course explains why the New York Times liked her so much.

Lozada didn't much like the book. That said, we think it's worth noting the way he starts his review:
LOZADA (4/22/18): Amy Chozick, the lead New York Times reporter on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, believes that the news media’s focus on Clinton’s private e-mail server—a story the Times broke and that Chozick would write about extensively—was excessive. She even grew to resent it. Chozick also thinks that reporting on campaign chairman John Podesta’s hacked emails turned journalists into “puppets” of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, and she struggles to explain why they did it anyway. She contends that sexism played a big role in Clinton’s defeat but also encounters it first-hand among Clinton’s campaign staff. And while she hammers the candidate for having no clear vision for why she sought the presidency, Chozick allows that competence, experience and policy were hardly selling points in 2016, when it “turned out a lot of people just wanted to blow s— up.”

These are some of the revelations and contradictions permeating Chozick’s “Chasing Hillary,” a memoir by turns poignant, insightful and exasperating. It’s a buffet-style book—media criticism here, trail reminscences there, political analysis and assorted recollections from Chozick’s past tossed throughout—and while the portions are tasty, none fully satisfies...
Lozada didn't much like the book. That said, our analysts howled at the way he began his review.

Their point was extremely basic. As he starts his review, Lozada tells us what Chozick believes about the media's focus on Clinton's emails. (She "believes it was excessive.")

He tells us how she came to feel, apparently in real time, about this focus. (She "grew to resent" it.)

He tells us what she thinks about the coverage of the Podesta emails. (She "thinks that reporting on campaign chairman John Podesta’s hacked emails turned journalists into 'puppets' of Putin.")

Lozada refers to these as "revelations." Here's the problem:

Lozada can't possibly know if Chozick really believes, and really felt, such things. He knows that this is what she's saying. He can't know if what she's saying is actually true.

For ourselves, we wouldn't trust Chozick as far as we could throw her. Lozada seems skeptical too.

For that reason, it's endlessly disappointing when journalists like Lozada write this way—when they turn something a hustler has said into something the hustler believes. Good journalists shoudn't do that.

For the record, Lozada knows how to write with greater precision. He does so in this very passage:

"[Chozick] contends that sexism played a big role in Clinton’s defeat..."

In that sentence, Lozada reports what Chozick has said. He doesn't say, in his own voice, that it's what she believes. This distinction is major and basic. The analysts wept and moaned when Lozada blew right past it as he began his review.

(For what it's worth: we thought Chozick and Hayes were at their disingenuous worst when they kept returning to sexism as the cause of Clinton's defeat. Among other things, this is the mainstream press corps' slithery way of ignoring their own decades of attacks on Clinton. More on this next week.)

Does Amy Chozick really believe that the media's focus on the emails was excessive? Does she really believe that this focus turned her guild into puppets of Putin?

She seems to be saying that she regret the coverage the media provided. But does she really regret the coverage, or is she just saying she does, as a means of personal rehabilitation?

We're disinclined to believe anything Chozick says. Beyond that, we've never seen Hayes as phony, faux and disingenuous as he seemed to be last night. On the side of illumination, last night's disingenuous outing largely defines an age, an age in which the mainstream press corps refuses to tell you the truth about its own attitudes, values, behavior.

Doers anyone escape corporate cable intact? By the way, how much does Hayes get paid to con us liberals like that?

Coming next week: What happens in the mainstream press corps stays in the mainstream press corps...


  1. One can hold two ideas in one's head simultaneously: that the mainstream press coverage of Hillary for 25 years has been problematical and that sexism did indeed play a part in the animosity towards Hillary and in her defeat.

    Republicans didn't need the msm to hate Hillary; they came up with that and nourished it all by themselves; it is ongoing.

    Republicans were fond of claiming that the msm were "in the tank" for Hillary. Just as some liberals felt the media were biased towards her against Bernie. It seems to be a matter of some debate, not to say subjectivity.

    1. Sexism is an important part of the alt-right's white supremacy and it is clear that it motivates a great deal of Trump's support. Read David Lane's 88 precepts with attention to the ones about the duty of white Aryan women to breed and preserve the race. Then look at the intersection between this and conservative efforts to control women's reproductive health and the natural impulse to mate with very young girls which should not be denied due to culture.

      Hillary is an affront to all of that, the symbol of everything wrong in America. These guys want to roll back feminism because it is an obstacle to white survival against other races. Trump didn't mistype the word "breeding" in his recent tweet.

      In the media analyses, Bernie got more positive coverage than Hillary. These things are not subjective. You can go count the column inches and media minutes, as researchers did.

    2. This explains why they keep attacking Hillary when she isn't running for anything any more.

  2. Hillary Clinton had a lot of trouble getting her message out. Today, people complain that her campaign lacked focus, that's its point was lost, etc., but how can a campaign get across any point without coverage? The time spent by Chozick and everyone else discussing emails was time that could have been spent covering the programs and policies she announced nearly every day. An interested person had to go to her website to read about those important policies and programs.

    Somerby is no different. He spent a lot of time complaining because Clinton discussed the mothers of victims of gun violence without examining the details of how those individuals died, accepting the narratives of the mothers themselves instead of being more critical.

    I read Clinton's memoir, What Happened, and she discusses the Black Live Matter movement in that same chapter and she expresses her support for law enforcement and for the victims, stating her own gratitude for the 25 years that the secret service and other officers have kept her safe, including overseas.

    Then she discusses the ban on assault rifles enacted by Bill Clinton during his first two years in office, and the Brady Bill passed during his first term, which imposed universal background checks. She tells how Democrats were deliberately targeted by the NRA in the first midterms and that the swing that gave Republicans power in Congress was partly due to that rebellion. She went on to state her own principled decision to oppose the NRA by proposing gun control as a policy during her campaign, knowing it would make her a target (if she weren't already one).

    Sure enough, the NRA did go after her tooth and nail. They said she would repeal the 2nd Ammendment and take away people's guns (despite her clear statements otherwise) and spent a great deal of money whipping up fear among gun owners. Nate Silver has not analyzed how much that cost her. She said that whatever one's feelings about BLM, it is clear that too many people are dying from gun violence and she chose to target that as an important issue during the campaign. But Somerby never mentions that.

    Instead Somerby expressed enthusiasm for Bernie and kept calling Clinton flawed, etc. What did Bernie do about guns? The same as most Democrats. He accepted their large contributions and kept his mouth shut about gun control, hoping they wouldn't oppose him, the way nearly all Democrats have done since 1994.

    Clinton showed political courage. Somerby might call that a mistake, a deep flaw, but he ignored that in his write up last week, as surely as Chozick ignored the other important measures Clinton discussed during the campaign. It is time for Somerby to examine the mote in his own eye and apologize for his misbehavior during the campaign. He was no better than Chozick.

    1. Are you sure you weren't raped at some point?

    2. Anon 2:34 , your comment is disgusting. For Somerby's sake, I hope you are not a Somerby fan. If you are, one can only bemoan how poorly Somerby has schooled you on how to respond to criticism of the God Somerby. Or perhaps you feel you are following his example of ad hominem, substanceless attacks. Because you got nothing else apparently.

    3. Bemoaning is the only option?

    4. As a passionate Clinton supporter, you must spend a looooooot of time bemoaning things.

    5. Maybe she was just dropped on her head.

  3. This is not how you do the autopsy of your organization's collapse, Bob. Not by complaining about media coverage. Especially considering that the establishment media is, in fact, an integral part of your organization.

    1. A central premise of TDH since its inception 20 years ago is that the so-called mainstream (aka "liberal") media isn't really liberal.

    2. Right, 'no true Scotsman'. Bob Somerby, the one and only true liberal on this planet.

    3. Mao, for this to be a "no true Scotsman" argument, someone would have to argue that the mainstream media isn't really media. No one said that.

    4. Mao, how is your organization in St. Petersburg doing ?

    5. It's not so much the media which is "liberal', but the corporations which own them. LOL.

    6. More good news from the "drain the swamp files:!!!!

      "We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lending industry officials at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.

    7. mm,
      I'm sure the Trump voters, who are "economically anxious" and, not at all bigots (it's true, I read it in the MSM), will get around to having a problem with this any millennia now. LOL

  4. Here is a better article about Chozick:

  5. Get your lover back urgent effective love spell to win and get ex boyfriend back my advise reveal you all to contact Dr happy for a genuine love spell on that work fast. here is my relationship story my names are
    Melissa Deditch born in Los Angeles Usa.. my boyfriend told me it was over and walk away without any reasons, I was confuse and didn't know what to do. I was desperate, I want him back, I went over the internet looking for ways to get my boyfriend back. I read about many different ways of how to get ex back, but Dr happy caught my attention. I immediately contacted him and explained my problem to him. It was amazing and surprising that 11hrs after the urgent love spell was cast, my boyfriend called me and was begging me to forgive him and accept him back, Couldn't believe, but later after he came to my house and fell on his knees asking me to take him back am so happy that my love is back again. I am testifying on this forum just to let people know that Dr happy is real and genuine. don't hesitate to try him out. thank you Dr happy you are truly talented and gifted genuine spell caster. Contact him now if you need your girlfriend/boyfriend back or your girlfriend moved on to another man, do not cry anymore .. Dr happy is here to help out in relationship problem coz problem share is problem solve: Contact him at also His blogs site... for more info, whatsapp/call...+2348133873774
    Visit his Web site...

  6. Hello Every One Out Here.

    I'm from USA Dallas. Am writing this great article to appreciate the good work of Dr IyaryI. I have been married for 2 years with pain and agony because my husband left me for another lady. I was reviewing some post on the internet on how i could get back my husband then, i saw a post by Kim Carberry from Canada. who testified of Dr IyaryI the almighty spiritual caster. I contacted Kim Carberry to confirm about Dr IyaryI and she guaranteed me and gave me the courage to contact Dr IyaryI for help. So, i contacted him and he assured me that my days of sorrows are over that i will get back my husband within 24 hours. I did all what he told me and am very happy today that my husband is back to me and we are now living happily like never before and i can boldly and proudly testify to the world that Dr IyaryI is a good and remarkable helper that specializes on different kind of spells. If you need his help, then contact him on E-mail: ( And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr IyaryI


  7. Henderson Elizabeth
    Dr joy is a trust worthy spell caster and he will be of great help to you. I never believed in spell casting but After 4 years of marriage my husband left me because I lost my womb, and i was unable to give birth to children. I felt like my life has come to an end, and i almost committed suicide, i was emotionally down for a very long time, but thanks to this spell caster called Dr joy whom i met online after my friend Becky Ross told me how he also helped her to bring back her husband in less than 2 days. I believed her and decided to give Dr joy a try and i contacted him on his email and explained my problems to him. He laughed and told me that In less than 2 days, my Husband will come back to me again, and that he will restore my womb and i will give birth to children. At first i thought it was a joke but i took courage and believed as Dr joy has said and it did happen just as this Great spell caster said, My husband called me and was crying, begging for forgiveness. I forgive him and today i am so glad that all worries and problems has gone away, and we are even happier than before, another good news is that i am pregnant now, and very soon we will have our baby. Dr joy is really a gifted and a powerful spiritual man and i will not stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man. I advice you all If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster to solve all your problems just Contact Dr joy on his email on because he will always help you to solve all problems. Once again thank you Dr joy. Thank you, thank you.
    you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348100452479.

  8. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930

  9. All thanks to the great doctor that help me to get back my boyfriend I thank you so much because you man of your words than anything he said will be done is a very good man I want to use opportunity thank Dr Ben and God shall bless him for getting my boyfriend back he is back to me now I didn't believe this at first until I put effort now my boyfriend is back I thank Dr Ben for the great work He has done for me I want him to keep doing this for other people are so that you can do it for me to thank you Dr Ben. And you can contact him at email or whatsapp number +2348151642717. Now I believe you are the great spell caster Dr Ben.