home

NYT Defense of Clinton Coverage: Drudge Loves It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun May 31, 2015 at 10:43:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

No seriously, that's what they said:

The editor running the coverage, Carolyn Ryan, is more than satisfied with the results so far. “We’ve had extraordinary and world-beating coverage,” Ms. Ryan, the Washington bureau chief, told me by phone this week, mentioning her “dream team of reporters.”

In the news media world, she said, “it’s been broadly recognized that we are dominating.” She mentioned that commenters from Matt Drudge to Dylan Byers of Politico to Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed have praised the coverage or aspects of it. [My emphasis.]

Somewhere, Howell Raines and Jeff Gerth are smiling.

< Thursday Open Thread: Aspen Bound | 7 Years Later, O'Malley Discovers "evils" of "dynasty" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NYT Defense of Clinton Coverage: Drudge Loves It | 14 comments (14 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    How are only 11 reporters... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by unitron on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    ...a "full-court press on campaign coverage"?

    That's only one reporter per every 2 or 3 occupants of the clown car before you even get to Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley.

    Carolyn Ryan finds (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    her, and the  dream team she is responsible for,  to be great--"extraordinary and world beating coverage."     Although she does note that the big story was from the WaPo about how Mrs. Clinton emails.

    Ms. Ryan must be satisfied; her boss, executive editor Dean Daquet agrees--"pretty fabulous."   Questionable reporting on Mrs. Clinton's early strategy on media contact, assessing/opining that the reporter/observer was not sure what she gains "playing the freak," was just "misunderstood" and the readers did not grasp the journalistic creativity.  I can see how that could happen.

    All too sad, but not too surprising.  However, the public editor, Margaret Sullivan, comes across as an easy grader, if not a patsy.   She gives "high marks" for much of the coverage--fair and balanced.  An example being Marco Rubio has a big donor.  The other, Mrs. Clinton's RELIANCE on an adviser with conflicted interests, in a reference to the notes sent to her by a old friend, Sidney Blumenfeld. In actuality, some of which she overlooked, some of which she just passed on without comment--none of which were relied upon for her functioning.     Ms. Sullivan is a contributor to journalistic grade inflation.  

    The New York Times, (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Zorba on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    as well as the Washington Post, have been sliding down into the muck for a number of years now.
    Whenever I hear a right-wing commenter rail against all the  "left-wing journalism," I just shake my head, and then I wind up laughing my @ss off.  
    If they think that the NYTimes and the WashPost are "left-wing journalism,'" then they are seriously deluded.

    Parent
    I just had the misfortune of listening to ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    Zorba: "If they think that the NYTimes and the WashPost are 'left-wing journalism,' then they are seriously deluded."

    ... Fox News' primetime shows for about an hour last Wednesday night. (And OMG, the casual racism that drips from their pundits' mouths ...!!!)

    Based upon what I heard that evening, it's hardly surprising to me that dedicated Foxbats would consider the New York Times and Washington Post to be run by Marxist-Leninist refugees from Pravda.

    It's really all a matter of personal perspective -- and when your perspective is from a perch that's smack-dab in the middle of the far right-wing fever swamp, practically everything and everyone else is going to appear left-wing to you.

    And yes, it's very much self-deluding. But as my elder sister often tells me, it doesn't have to make any sense to you and me, for it to still be all too real to the crackpots amongst us.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Clearly (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    getting endorsed by some of the greatest master-(click)-baiters ever known is a badge of honor in our brave new journalistic landscape.

    And isn't this the truth (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:41:23 PM EST
    nowadays?  Sadly.   :-(

    Parent
    One need only consider the (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:39:23 AM EST
    journalistic cred of the individuals and publications in which Ms. Ryan is taking pride to understand the level to which the NYT has already sunk - and to get an idea of how much lower it is likely to go as this election campaign gets underway.

    It does not bode well for the next 17 months.

    Well, the NY Times at least (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    admitted its obsession with all things anti-Hillary.....

    Just chasing ratings or accolades of Drudge (a truly surreal admission)....

    So much for truth and journalism.....

    I do not begrudge them their talent--I have always thought the headline writers at the National Enquirer were talented too, and having so much fun.....

    She is on IMDB (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:27:14 PM EST
    2013 Fox and Friends (TV Series)
    Herself - WAGA Reporter
    - Episode dated 18 December 2013 (2013) ... Herself - WAGA Reporter
    Carolyn Ryan (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:27:59 PM EST
    that is

    Parent
    Fox Atlanta (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:39:24 PM EST
    no less.

    All this should be even less surprising then.

    Parent

    Actually, the problem is with the readers of (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:23:17 AM EST
    the NYT's election coverage:

    Ms. Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers: "I feel like a lot of people misread it." She said that Mr. Horowitz "was trying to do something counterintuitive and brave" about Mrs. Clinton's strategy of ignoring the press.
    No (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 04:51:33 AM EST
    the problem is the readers completely understood that bit of sanctimony from Horowitz. It just reeked.

    Parent
    To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 06:50:53 AM EST

    Some editorial  hack decreed
    that the readers had lost the publisher's confidence
    and could only regain it with redoubled effort.
    If that is the case, would it not be simpler,
    If the publishers simply dissolved the readership
    And elected another?



    Parent
    NYT Defense of Clinton Coverage: Drudge Loves It | 14 comments (14 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment