NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

So now the NYTimes is openly in the business of doing steno for the GOP. Just awful:

The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book ["Clinton Cash."

Who cares if the author writes for Breitbart and worked for George W Bush? It's hit piece on Hillary Clinton! Does anyone at these news organization care about ethics anymore?

And the awfulness is patent even in this prelude piece. Consider this:

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

Leave aside the insane idea that Keystone originated with Clinton, think about the sheer nonsense on the Colombian free trade agreement. First, as a Senator, Clinton was AGAINST at the same time the Clinton Foundation was getting donations from the Canadian oil executive:

In a Wall Street Journal story from 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies. [. . .] On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal.

So when Giustra had already directed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, she opposed the deal. It was only after she became Secretary of State that she felt beholden? Oh by the way, why would Obama change his mind because of donations to the Clinton Foundation?

But the New York Times, dutifully taking GOP stenography credulously reports this absurdity.

Here's the clincher from the story:

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

So the New York Times cuts a deal with a Republican hit man and NewsCorp and proudly trumpets its failed ethics. the ultimate irony is that this is unethical journalism ostensibly to cover alleged unethical behavior. What it is of course is a disgrace.

< CNN Poll: Clinton leads all Republicans by Double Digits
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The NYT recently announced it would (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    be publishibg "sponsored" articles. This "article" is not labelled "sponsored."  

    Thank you, BTD, for writing about this.

    I wonder if the NYT will also enter into contracts with writers of books disparaging the multitude of GOP contenders.

    Why should they? (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    Didn't you read where Peter Schweizer writes as a "neutral observer?"

    Surely, his prior books give no hint of biased writing. All you need do is read his, "Do as I say, Profiles of Liberal Hypocrisy," and any doubt you might have as to even handiness will be put to rest.


    Books like Peter Schweizer's (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    are to be expected.  What should not be expected is their promulgation by the NYT (Fox is a given, as is, WaPo).  However, the NYT has apparently shown its dedication to the facts with a quick correction to an earlier draft of "Hoover Institution" from the incorrect "Hoover Institute."  Guess that is assure the reader of fairness.

    Schweitzer, who "speaks in the voice of a neutral journalist," seems to have undermined his proved pattern of Mr. Clinton's speeches over $500,000 by reporting that 15 percent of them occurred before Mrs. Clinton was SOS.  

    It is revelatory, too,  that Marco Rubio (the world's oldest young man or youngest old man) and Rand Paul (who alternates between being the warden and inmate of the asylum)  have been "briefed" on this unvarnished polemic. They do, after all,  need something other than Poland Springs or a woman reporter to snap at, to keep them going.

    The bit about the author (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    who speaks in the voice of a neutral journalist is mystifying and maddening.  Is he?  No, according to Ms. Chozick's description of his resume. But then again, her "coverage" of HRC is very quick to highlight the negative.

    The Press is anti-Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    It looks like the anti-Hillary attitude of the press will backfire, however....

    Hillary does well to run her campaign without trying to please the press.

    You have (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    to suspend reality when reading that too if you look at the financial statements of the CGI which shows the salary Bill has taken from CGI.

    Also (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    remember the NYT has been in the business of doing stenography for the NYT for quite a while. Judith Miller anyone?

    Oh, well...haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Judith has a new book out outlining how she did look around all corners, checked under all beds, shook the closets for skeletons and scouted nooks and hideaways thoroughly before she printed any of her Scooter Libby luncheon menus.  She DID preform textbook journalism...and the textbook investigative journalism all said invade Iraq.  She has suffered being unjustly singled out and is also a victim of unjust public scorn.

    I saw her on Morning Joe (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    this morning getting very tough questions from W's former press secretary.

    Ya, journalists all.


    David Sirota has also been tweeting (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    about the Colombian free trade deal and writing with others in his IBT articles. At first read is seems like there could be some there there, but the more I read it the vaguer it gets.

    All trade deals are a just that -deals. Without inside information that is not provided in these articles, there is no way to know how easily stronger protection for labor rights were bargained away, or how hand-on Clinton was in doing any of it.

    The problem with the theory (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    is the idea that anyone but Obama decides these issues.

    Yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    but when you are talking to irrational Republicans that's not how they think. They think the CGI is control of the world economy and that Obama is just a puppet of Bill Clinton.

    Can you cite an example of someone saying that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Payaso on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    Other than a nut like Alex Jones?

    WND (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    has been shopping that line along with other conservative sites.

    The Press is anti-Hillary (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    It looks like the anti-Hillary attitude of the press will backfire, however....

    Hillary does well to run her campaign without trying to please the press.

    The good news is (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    that this story came out this early in the campaign. And, inasmuch as Hillary must have known this was coming we'll get to see how She & her Team handles it.

    I hope she has a system in place like her Husband, Bill, had when he was running. Y'all remember Bill & James Carville's "War Room?" That was when they instituted a rapid-response team to handle all the crap thrown at him during the campaign. The idea being that letting accusations linger was a bad idea, so hitting back, and hitting back hard right away, pretty much neutralized the negative attacks.

    Anyway, it was pretty much common knowledge that the Clinton Foundation was going to be a major topic of attack by the GOP. It will be interesting to se how the Hillary organization handles it.

    The Clinton Foundation is a ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    ...  501(c)3 nonprofit organization, and not a for-profit corporation or a political action committee.

    People who believe otherwise in the absence of facts are mistaken.

    People who insist otherwise in the face of evidence to the contrary are delusional.

    People who imply otherwise by misstatement and omission of facts are duplicitous.

    I won't be baited into arguing with others about this manufactured issue, because I simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of their baseless contentions.



    How does (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 03:30:00 PM EST
     the Foundation's tax status have anything to do with the question of whether "we will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds[?]"



    It has nothing to do with it...... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 04:32:35 PM EST
    ....and quit pointing out such things.

    Jim, what a coincidence! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    Here I was, just talking to someone in my office about Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and you show up. Time and again at TL and in other threads, you've proved yourself to be a more than willing conduit for the reckless dissemination of baseless and often venal right-wing allegations against Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, Muslims, people of color, etc. In such matters, you're nothing but a bad joke in perpetual search of its own punchline.

    The Clintons do not benefit (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    financially if money is donated to a charity that is a non profit.

    Probably not much (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    Then again, it doesn't have anything to do with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or a host of other specious fairy tales.

    I have a question . . . (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    If that were the case, where were the Republicans when it was happening in real time? They have NEVER passed up an opportunity to 'get' a Clinton, especially her.  Are all these clowns now just noticing? Were they not paying attention while she was SoS?

    Because the writer's allegations ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 06:58:05 PM EST
    ... are intended to mislead low-information readers into believing that the Clinton Foundation is some sort of PAC founded primarily to support Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. He is further implying -- without outright saying it in print, which would be both libelous and actionable -- that the Clintons and foundation donors have an illicit quid pro quo relationship. And that is simply duplicitous and wrong.

    BTD is right. This is nothing more than a low-brow hit piece.


    Psst (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    this story is years old.

    The story is either true or it's not. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Payaso on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    I am more concerned with the truth (or falsity) of the matter asserted than who is doing the asserting.  This would not be the first hit-piece on the Clintons to fail miserably.

    Schweizer is a partisan hack ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    ... who has a long history of making discredited claims against Democrats:

    1.  Claimed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse benefited from a stock sale because of his position in the U.S. Senate - forced to retract when there were numerous factual problems with his claims, including the fact that Whitehouse wasn't even a member of the committee that Schweizer claimed.

    2.  Al Gore - he claimed Gore was receiving $20,000/year in zinc mine royalties from a mine that was, in fact, closed.  USA Today had to issue a correction

    3.  Obama - Claimed Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings.  Schweizer got 3 Pinnochios for this silly claim.

    4.  Pelosi - attacked her as a hypocrite for using non-union workers at her vineyard, despite the fact that she hired workers who were paid a higher rate than union workers and it would have been illegal (as the FWA noted) for her to even discuss a union contract - the only way to upply union workers.

    5)Obama/Sebelius - He falsely claimed that Obama met with Sebelius once in 3 1/2 years.  Easily debunked by basic fact checking.

    6)  Rep. Jim McDermott (D) - Falsely claimed that Jim McDermott committed insider trading related to a Bioterrorism bill.  Debunked in follow-up pieces by the Seattle Times - "unfair, "Inaccurate" "specious"

    And numerous examples where his "sources" didn't match his claims or didn't exist.

    Need more?


    Oh, come on... (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:09:31 PM EST
     and get with the program. It doesn't matter whether the book (that no one here has read)contains the truth. Why should we care about that?

      Obviously, nothing the Clintons do can be considered dubious let alone ill befitting a Presidential candidate.

      Surely, if anything they do were to raise legitimate questions a book would be written by  a Democratic supporter of Ms. Clinton because her supporters care far more about truth and propriety than they do anything else and they would be the first to call attention to anything that might be considered troubling if someone other than the Clintons did it.

       The very fsct the book was not written by one of her supporters is all the proof you should need to know it cannot possibly contain anything but lies.



    Oh, come on (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 06:42:09 PM EST
    The accusers credibility - or complete lack thereof - are always an issue.

    But your straw arguments are almost amusing.


    Oh it's you (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    Whether the story is true or not is something reporters determine on their own, not based on a hack's book.

    But hey ru so yea hack team! right?


    But, you're not following that (none / 0) (#18)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    You've already decided that because it's written by a "hack" that it's just part of the conspiracy to deny Clinton the Presidency.

      When you preemptively attempt to discredit something you have not read for purely partisan hack reasons, it seems a bit hypocritical  to accuse others.


    Reading is fndamental (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    IF the New york Times does actual, you know, reporting, and breaks a story, then let's evaluate it.

    That's not what happened. Thyey instead made a deal with a hack to develop his storylines.

    This is unethical journalism.

    Apparently this simple fact defies you.


    And you know (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:41:25 PM EST
     the NYT did no independent fact-checking prior to publishing?

      You also know  the Editors don't really believe that there is any merit to any of the facts asserted or any inferences drawn from those facts? You already know the NYT just wants to destroy Hillary because otherwise it would not publish unflattering information?



    Well (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:48:34 PM EST
    you have to also realize that the NYT was the one selling the bogus Whitewater stuff. So yeah, they have a history of falling for hoaxes from the GOP. Beyond Clinton you can go back to them swallowing lies for the Bush Administration. So why would you automatically believe someone who has shown that kind of problem before?

    New York Times actually has a so-so record (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:01:24 PM EST
    The New York Times supported the Iraq War.....

    I would not be surprised if it has always supported the war de jour, including the Vietnam War, at least in the beginning.

    My eyes were opened regarding an obscure event in history.  The New York Times was in favor of toppling the democratically elected Arbenz Government in Guatemala.  The N.Y. Times fell for and advanced the idea that Arbenz was a Communist, when he was not (and so what?)  The Guatemalan Ambassadors to the U.S. and the U.N. desperately tried to avoid the coming U.S. invasion.  The UN turned its back.

    The Nation, however, got Guatemala exactly right and editorialized against the overthrow of Arbenz.

    I do not trust The New York Times on issues of war and peace.   It is not just Judy Miller.  It tends to supports the administration (even Republican ones) on defense policy.


    Chipotle! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    I'll see your Chipotle!, and raise you ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    ... a BenGHAZEEeee!!!



    Love the "questions" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 06:47:23 PM EST
    The last resort of someone with no evidence to back up their claims.

    Did you read the story? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    Try reading the story so you know whats in it.

    Oh, good lord (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    You should google this author. He's a big time conspiracy theorist. The NYT is foolish to get into an agreement with this nut. They are going to end up having major egg on their face.

    Scrambled or easy over? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 03:25:31 PM EST

    Would It make a difference (none / 0) (#31)
    by NycNate on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    if it could be proven true?  

    Unlikely (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    It seems illogical that you would bribe a public official by donating to a non profit charity.  Especially when the public official does not benefit financially.

    The premise makes no sense.  The Clintons take nothing financially from CGI....Well, I think Bill gets a bupkis salary.


    Not to my post (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    I'm curious, did you read it?

    Other reports surfacing that (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    The Washington Post did not enter into such an agreement despite the mention that the WP also went down the NYT road on this one.  I saw that claim today in--of all places--Politico.  Also now mentioned in TPM is that ABC and "60 Minutes" turned down a similar arrangement with the author. Note: So far, there have been no return comments from those purportedly denying such an arrangement.

    Given NYT's peculiar history beginning with "Whitewater" et al and chuckling at the newer we-didn't-go-there tidbits alluded to in my first paragraph ... and stirring it in the hype cauldron ... we might have to wonder who will schnooker whom in the end :)

      And then there's this: The Clinton Foundation hasn't been established for all that many years and, whatever one's position as to Bill and/or Hillary, almost everyone acknowledges that the political and governmental duo are smart (very smart.) The reality is that there is no motive for either Clinton to have been less than totally above-board in all things Foundation; rather--at this stage in the lives of these two very smart and experienced people in the ways of DC & much beyond--there is every reason from the get-go to be squeaky clean. IMO, this latest attempt at smear and dirt will reveal that the real motive is partisan dotted with the individual author's base attempt to rack up sales with a bit of orchestrated throwing-c$@p-on-the-wall-to-see-if-anything-sticks.

    Update re:WashPo confirmation (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    Washington Post has since confirmed (E.Wemple) that it secured a deal with the author in order to have access to allegations before book's publication.
    Competition is tough, I guess, in the news business.

    Lol!~ Just saw the cover of the book . . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    If this doesn't scream hair-on-fire-bull-sh!t, I don't know what does . . .

    You'd think he could find a better cover design if he wants anyone but the nut jobs to take him seriously . . . NYT just went all the way down the rabbit hole . . . again?

    It's Jerome (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    Corsi redux. But you have to realize that the cover is very effective in fleecing the rubes. I'm sure that the conservatives who post on this site will be running to the bookstores to buy this. You know the story about a fool and their money etc.

    It really looks like something (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 09:33:20 PM EST
    I would design as a joke . . .  thankfully, I worked in children's books and never had to deal with that kinda crap coming through my office . . . even on the art end, we read all the books as they were in progress, several times for visual edits, etc . . .

    The (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    "Customers who bought this also bought...."

    Is good

    I expect the reviews will be too


    That cracked me up (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 09:29:17 PM EST
    and 2 of his previous books are going for 2 bucks+change :P

    Ahem, who is your Republican candidate (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    for President among the bunch that are running (or expected to run)?  After all, it is always nice to get a read on someone's perspective....

    Rachel Maddow agrees with Armando (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    Just watched the segment on her show showing the background of the propagandist, and voicing surprise that the NY Times is involved in this stuff....

    Don;t comment in my posts (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2015 at 10:54:37 PM EST