The New York Times Smears Hillary Clinton

1:04 pm EST April 23rd, 2006 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Last Sunday Anne Kornblut at the New York Times wrote a free ad disguised as a news story about a book of “quotes” that were designed to paint Hillary Clinton in a bad light. Of course, like most things designed as “research” on the right, the book’s quotes (did Ben Domenech edit it too, like he edited Michelle Malkin’s and Hugh Hewitt’s books?) are not sourced and probably out and out fabricated. So now, after sitting on it for a week, The Times has written a four paragraph correction of the original hatchet job.

Way to go, “liberal media”!

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

10 Responses to “The New York Times Smears Hillary Clinton”

  1. Mike says:
    April 23, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    So, you’re just figuring out that the New York Times regularly publishes “out and out fabrications“?

    And that they publish corrections too?

    (*gasp*)

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    April 23, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    I’ve never pretended they didn’t Mike (see here for much more Times crimes), but unlike the right who thinks they can get in the head of everyone, most of us on the left believes its a combination of their sloppy journalism combined with right wing liars.

  3. Frank_D says:
    April 24, 2006 at 7:04 am

    Riiight! There are just so many “right wing liars” at the Times — all both of them!

  4. factcheck says:
    April 24, 2006 at 8:04 am

    That must have been another paper I was reading in late 2002 and early 2003 that was beating the war drums, and discounting the other side (which has been proven right).

  5. Dugger says:
    April 24, 2006 at 8:04 am

    The NY Times is a left wing paaper through and through. They will certainly criticize Democrats who they think have moved too near the centre. Same as OW. He will occassionally shows his ‘fairness’ by pointing out he criticizes Democrats – same principal, though – from the left (see Lieberman). Hillary has gotten some of that too – at times, she is insufficiently ideologically pure.

    Dugger

  6. Oliver Willis says:
    April 24, 2006 at 8:04 am

    Or the paper that was obsessed to the point of absurdity by Whitewater and the other made-up scandals pushed by the right wing. Or the same paper that wrote the most absurd stories about Al Gore and Wes Clark when they were running for office.

  7. Dugger says:
    April 24, 2006 at 10:04 am

    Hey, fine with me. Lets split the NYT in half. We’ll make my half the WaTimes East or The 42nd St. Journal or Fox on Paper; and you guys can make your half The Revolutionary Workers Glorious Victory Over The Running Dog Lackeys of the Imperial Hegemonists Journal – or whatever.

    Dugger, Meeting the Compassionate-with-Your-Money Half Way Every Time

  8. qkslvr_wolf says:
    April 24, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Hey, if it means you’ll stop spouting a 20 year out of date talking point, we’ll take that deal.

    Minus your the dumbass name. We’ll stick with something simple. New York Real News (Now with less talking points and neocon frames!), or something like that.

  9. Dugger says:
    April 24, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    quickie, I guess Fox on Paper is a little Outre. I apologize.

    New York Real News. Not bad. Though by Real News that would hopefully be the negatives and positives coming out of Iraq, the good and bad of the Bush Admin, etc. No Bush lied nonsense, of course. You know, “Real’ meaning in touch with the real world which is usaully painted in shades of gray instead of comic book black and white.

    Dugger, Who, when a liberal, was quoted as saying:

    The Problem of Governance is Spending that Huge Cache of Loot Hidden Under the Capitol Dome.

  10. Frank_D says:
    April 24, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    Look, if the New York Times were actually a conservative paper, there would more than two examples, one from 6 years ago, one from nearly 10 years ago