The NYT shows its pro-Clinton bias
2015-10-14 Consider the following "News Analysis" of last night's Democratic debate:
By PATRICK HEALY
New York Times "News Analysis", 2015-10-14
...
Indeed, her expertise as secretary of state translated into stature on the debate stage —
a sophistication about global challenges and poise under fire.
On dealing with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia,
Mrs. Clinton crisply described the ways that the United States’ relationship with Russia
had soured since Mr. Putin returned to the presidency.
[Note the very, very clear New York Times bias here.
There is plenty of room to disagree over what is the best way to handle Russia and Putin.
Why is it that the way Hillary describes below is "sophistication"?
I've been listening to propaganda (yes, that's the right word)
like this for half a century now.
No, it's not sophisticated to pick totally unnecessary fights with people.
In fact, it's dumb.
So why does this demonstrate "expertise", "stature", or "sophistication"?
The only thing it demonstrates is how utterly bigoted the New York Times is.]
“We have to stand up to his bullying,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“I think it’s important, too,
that the United States make it very clear to Putin
that it’s not acceptable for him to be in Syria,
creating more chaos, bombing people in support of Assad.”
[Just who is creating "chaos" in Syria?
Is it coincidence that Assad is unpopular in Israel?]
Mrs. Clinton also put two rivals in their place when they challenged her judgment on foreign policy.
Replying to former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland,
who questioned her 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq,
she scoffed at “a lot of loose talk going on here”
and noted how “pleased” she had been when Mr. O’Malley endorsed her in 2008.
[That put O'Malley "in his place"?
Please.
What bias.]
And when another Democratic candidate, Lincoln Chafee,
criticized Mrs. Clinton for “poor judgment calls” in authorizing the invasion of Iraq,
Mrs. Clinton pivoted by noting that President Obama apparently had no problem with her judgment
when he selected her as secretary of state.
...
Geez, it's not just the New York Times.
The Washington Post loved her performance too.
Get out the crown!
2015-10-14-NYT-so-called-News-Analysis-hillary-clinton-moves-quickly-to-re-establish-trust-in-honesty-and-competence
Democratic Debate Turns Hillary Clinton’s Way After Months of DifficultiesBy PATRICK HEALY
New York Times "News Analysis", 2015-10-14
...
Indeed, her expertise as secretary of state translated into stature on the debate stage —
a sophistication about global challenges and poise under fire.
On dealing with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia,
Mrs. Clinton crisply described the ways that the United States’ relationship with Russia
had soured since Mr. Putin returned to the presidency.
[Note the very, very clear New York Times bias here.
There is plenty of room to disagree over what is the best way to handle Russia and Putin.
Why is it that the way Hillary describes below is "sophistication"?
I've been listening to propaganda (yes, that's the right word)
like this for half a century now.
No, it's not sophisticated to pick totally unnecessary fights with people.
In fact, it's dumb.
So why does this demonstrate "expertise", "stature", or "sophistication"?
The only thing it demonstrates is how utterly bigoted the New York Times is.]
“We have to stand up to his bullying,” Mrs. Clinton said.
“I think it’s important, too,
that the United States make it very clear to Putin
that it’s not acceptable for him to be in Syria,
creating more chaos, bombing people in support of Assad.”
[Just who is creating "chaos" in Syria?
Is it coincidence that Assad is unpopular in Israel?]
Mrs. Clinton also put two rivals in their place when they challenged her judgment on foreign policy.
Replying to former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland,
who questioned her 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq,
she scoffed at “a lot of loose talk going on here”
and noted how “pleased” she had been when Mr. O’Malley endorsed her in 2008.
[That put O'Malley "in his place"?
Please.
What bias.]
And when another Democratic candidate, Lincoln Chafee,
criticized Mrs. Clinton for “poor judgment calls” in authorizing the invasion of Iraq,
Mrs. Clinton pivoted by noting that President Obama apparently had no problem with her judgment
when he selected her as secretary of state.
...
Geez, it's not just the New York Times.
The Washington Post loved her performance too.
Get out the crown!
Labels: New York Times, partisan bias
posted by KHarbaugh at 18:40
