10 ms·

I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2

I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped-up-clinton-subverted-sanders/ http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-bernie-sanders-article-for-clinton-campaign-5156a43755ca#.by7rmq5is https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-wikileaks-john-podesta-emails-smear-negative-lies-a7358516.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I am genuinely curious about this. Do you have a better source handy?
- dariusm5 10y ago
  It depends on what you mean by 'better'. The sources I linked are reporting on emails from Wikileaks. Therefore, I think Wikileaks would be the best source for the raw information without any editorializing or spin. I doubt some media outlets would offer any decent reporting on these leaks as it damaged their credibility (e.g. Huffington Post, CNN, Politico, NYT, etc)
  - moultano 10y ago
    Then at least link to the emails you find objectionable? Everything I've seen is just the normal process of reporters talking to the people they cover.
    - Mao_Zedang 10y ago
      https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526
      - moultano 10y ago
        What do those have to do with the nytimes? (Maybe explain what you think is going on here, and why it's bad? It looks like they are suggesting questions to CNN to ask Trump in an interview?)
grandalf 10y ago
So did I. There's nothing wrong with a news org expressing its opinions -- on the editorial page. But a news organization earns respect by offering solid, objective reporting. To paraphrase George Orwell, journalism is writing the stories that powerful interests don't want written! The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. If it weren't such a major failure of a key institution of our democratic system it would be funny. The purpose of the press is to be adversarial, not to help meet the PR objectives of those it views as friends.
- micaksica 10y ago
  > The purpose of the press is to be adversarial, not to help meet the PR objectives of those it views as friends. Once you know enough "good" PR people, you quickly realize that the press often doesn't work that way, save a few investigative journalists. Some PR-types I know at larger SV organizations have a lot of blogger and journalist friends, and they appear to have an unwritten "we'll give you the scoop if you give us right of first refusal" on a lot of stories.
- monfrere 10y ago
  > The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. This is false, or misleading at best, if you're referring to the Mark Leibovich profile of Clinton. He sent an off-the-record transcript the campaign asking whether it could be put on the record, and the campaign only allowed him to publish part of it. Not ideal of course, but I'm not sure how you would avoid this, unless you think off-the-record interviews should be banned entirely.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I think your take on this is a bit misleading. The only thing subject to being on the record would be specific quotes or statements by HRC. The rest of the article, the parts he was asking for approval on, were the journalistic conclusions he drew. He was asking for approval in case the campaign felt any of it was off message. There was also discussion of staying on message! It's absurd that candidates should be treated with such kid gloves. HRC should be happy to subject herself to whatever interviews, etc., from the nation's most respected paper simply to allow her side of the story to be noted. The predominant vibe should be adversarial, skeptical of her motives and promises, and doing the interview and reading the resulting piece should be unpleasant for the candidate. I know the NYT tailors the composition of various pages based on the print, afternoon, or online edition, etc., but throughout most of September and October, the pre-paywall politics section contained at least two flattering/fluffy stories about the HRC campaign every single day. I'm sure there are people who want to read that stuff, but they should be asking how she'll turn all the promises into law, why she waited to support gay marriage, why she allowed her cronies to sabotage Sanders' campaign on her behalf, etc. The NYT did none of that. So coupled with the very friendly treatment by Leibovich, the news org doesn't really seem much like a news org.
mudil 10y ago
The level of Democratic party and media cooperation is staggering. Media has effectively become a part of the liberal part of the government. The reason Wikileaks scandal got so little attention is because they all, CNN, NYT, etc, are in bed with each other. It's effectively a government-media complex. Interview with Julian Assange: https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4 https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4
- grandalf 10y ago
  > a part of the liberal part of the government It's not actually liberal. In reality it's quite conservative... moneyed, powerful interests shaping the messages that they want the public to consume. The idea that HRC is politically leftist is a bizarre bit of wizardry that is completely false and helps people who would vote for a leftward leaning candidate believe that she is on their side. It's arguable whether HRC or George H.W. Bush is further to the right... they are in a similar ballpark... the endorsement is not too farfetched, though normally party loyalty would have prevented it from being made public.
  - skyrw 10y ago
    This election isn't Liberalism vs Conservatism, it's Corporatism vs Populism.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      I agree... HRC is a corporatist conservative and Trump is a populist conservative.
      - briandear 10y ago
        Neither one is conservative. Conservatism means small, limited government. Classical 'liberalism.' Both want large expansive governments -- the differences are in how they employ the machinery of government to achieve their ends.
      - burkaman 10y ago
thesagan 10y ago
Adding to your point: I sense they've taken a tacky and somewhat nannyish "guardian of democracy" approach in their headline selection lately. I like to be told the news, but it felt as if I was being told how I should be voting; it seemed manipulative and insulting to my intelligence and experience. I feel a sense of distrust between the news editors and their readers; that Citizen Kane feeling. That said, I thought David Brooks' latest piece was well-put.
- iamdave 10y ago
  >but it felt as if I was being told how I should be voting I've felt this sentiment since slightly before the conventions. Ask this independent voter why he's anxious for this to all be over? It's all the "Do you want Trump? Because that's how you get Trump" histrionics.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - fuqted 10y ago
    "Do you want Hillary?"
    - iamdave 10y ago
      That too.
moultano 10y ago
Your links don't match your description of them.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  I thought he was talking about Wikileaks sabotaging Bernie and being the PR firm, but I realized he meant the NYT was doing it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 10y ago
Yeah, that and acting as a PR agency for the Iraq war. Edit: Google "Judith Miller," then downvote.
- gaur 10y ago
  Why is this comment greyed out? The NYT shilled hard for the Iraq war. They even issued an apology because of it (too little too late, of course).
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    The Iraq War part is fine. Here's the NYT's post-mortem on that. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html?referer=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-... It's the "that and" part that is not. There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. There isn't even a Challabi-like informant in the Sanders camp trying to make that claim.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders I'm not a Sanders supporter but you don't need "evidence of collusion" to make that assertion. You just need to take a look at the NYT's own online archive. They waited until the last possible minute before they even began talking about Sanders -- or anyone else -- as a serious primary contender. Meanwhile, coverage of Clinton was almost a daily affair. Clinton was anointed by the press from the get-go, just as Trump was anointed with billions of dollars' worth of free publicity by the same media outlets. Their preferences were so obvious, in both cases, that the burden of proof belongs to those who claim otherwise.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Of course, the NYT covered Clinton more. She was the Senator of the state the newspaper is located in, she won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries, and she had recently been Secretary of State. She was obviously the frontrunner. The kind of coverage that the NYT gave Clinton wasn't more favorable than what it gave Sanders, on the other hand. The NYT broke the Clinton email story.
blintz 10y ago
"PR agency" is quite the stretch. If you read the actual email (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634) instead of the poor secondhand accounts you linked, you'll see that there's a staffer that says "I think it’s as good as we could hope for. We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF" This is a staffer saying that they talked the reporter from the NYT out of focusing on an area they didn't like. It shows the Hilary campaign is slimey, but it doesn't mean that the NYT has suddenly lost all credibility as a news source. It's not clear from the email that the reporter actually promised anything; it sounds equally probable that the Clinton people were just happy with the NYT's reporting. I also think (perhaps cynically) that this happens all the time, and is not a huge deal - sources try to angle the pieces journalists write about them, and selectively reveal information favorable to them, and journalists comply to varying degrees to get more information out of those sources in the future; it's not an ethical bright line - it's murky, and I doubt if you listened to all the communication that journalists had with their sources, you would find some stark ethical boundary between sources and journalists 100% of the time. All reporters talk to the people they are covering. There is always a risk of sources having undue control over a story, but this doesn't sound as extreme as you are making it out to be. We can't abandon a respected source of journalism just because there is a vague appearance of impropriety.
- briandear 10y ago
  I would argue the Clinton campaign isnt slimey because of this -- it's smart media relations. What does call credibility into question is The NY Times was "talked out of" reporting on something. An objective reporter would tell them to pound sand at a request to not report something.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    The Clinton campaign's perception was they talked the reporter out of something. As an ex-journalist, I've no doubt that on many occasions a PR thought they had convinced me of something when they absolutely hadn't.
  - totalZero 10y ago
monfrere 10y ago
I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be flattering, the PR people will obviously high-five themselves. When some part of the story is negative, the PR people will be disappointed and try to get the reporter to see their side. See this article [1] from Mark Leibovich for an NYT reporter's account of one of the issues addressed in your links. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
  You would think people on hn would have internet access. Is there some sort of print & mail forwarding system I am unaware of? I haven't heard of any wikileaks censorship at least not in the US. Are there people on hn who have internet access, but are still in denial? Half of these comments sound so bizarre. Trolling?
- throwaway_nyt 10y ago
  You have very conveniently sweept it under normal PR behavior. And even used NYtimes link to debunk it all. Lovely. Nytimes pandered Iraq war hard to US masses, never believing in any political position they push. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN I have left out all the normal questions which journalists ask. Donna Brazile leaking CNN questions:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 DNC directing questions to Wolf Blitzer to ask to Donald/Cruz/Fiorina:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 NBC news first draft:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 (Don't know what he/she is talking about here) Newsweek story:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 DNC Chairman having meeting with MSNBC predisent:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 Sharing story before sharing with editor:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Jake Tapper questions:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 Journalists have been giving the campaign full stories before being published, will Clinton team not push back on any negative aspects? There are 2 3 other emails; one from a batch released a month ago and one around last week. Form your own opinions if they are journalists asking for a genuine access, or... Sorry for bad formatting...
fuqted 10y ago
From the headlines: >Inside Donald Trump's Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance >Optimism From Hillary Clinton and Darkness From Donald trump at Campaign's End >Donald Trump's Big Bet on Less Educated Whites
- thght 10y ago
  Indeed, that's how they do that, in the hope the horde will follow their made up winner. Unfortunately most media in this world are more corrupt than people are willing to believe.
throwanem 10y ago
No news agency anywhere merits trust. Many merit attention nonetheless; a thoughtful reader armed with knowledge of a given agency's bias and style can still derive useful information from its work, and every blue moon or so one finds a story that's actually true at face value. (Never count on it, though.) Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport, never more so than today. Whether you feel it a sport worth playing is your own lookout. (And a US presidential election is maybe not the best introduction to this perspective, unless you value full immersion, because it's the one time when absolutely everyone is guaranteed to be lying just as hard as they can - and all in the most meritorious of causes, of course.)
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport ------------------------------- >nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle... I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time... general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will &c &c. but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807) http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-57...

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

I am genuinely curious about this. Do you have a better source handy?

dariusm5 10y ago
It depends on what you mean by 'better'. The sources I linked are reporting on emails from Wikileaks. Therefore, I think Wikileaks would be the best source for the raw information without any editorializing or spin. I doubt some media outlets would offer any decent reporting on these leaks as it damaged their credibility (e.g. Huffington Post, CNN, Politico, NYT, etc)
- moultano 10y ago
  Then at least link to the emails you find objectionable? Everything I've seen is just the normal process of reporters talking to the people they cover.
  - Mao_Zedang 10y ago
    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526
    - moultano 10y ago
      What do those have to do with the nytimes? (Maybe explain what you think is going on here, and why it's bad? It looks like they are suggesting questions to CNN to ask Trump in an interview?)

grandalf 10y ago

So did I. There's nothing wrong with a news org expressing its opinions -- on the editorial page. But a news organization earns respect by offering solid, objective reporting. To paraphrase George Orwell, journalism is writing the stories that powerful interests don't want written! The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. If it weren't such a major failure of a key institution of our democratic system it would be funny. The purpose of the press is to be adversarial, not to help meet the PR objectives of those it views as friends.

micaksica 10y ago
> The purpose of the press is to be adversarial, not to help meet the PR objectives of those it views as friends. Once you know enough "good" PR people, you quickly realize that the press often doesn't work that way, save a few investigative journalists. Some PR-types I know at larger SV organizations have a lot of blogger and journalist friends, and they appear to have an unwritten "we'll give you the scoop if you give us right of first refusal" on a lot of stories.
monfrere 10y ago
> The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. This is false, or misleading at best, if you're referring to the Mark Leibovich profile of Clinton. He sent an off-the-record transcript the campaign asking whether it could be put on the record, and the campaign only allowed him to publish part of it. Not ideal of course, but I'm not sure how you would avoid this, unless you think off-the-record interviews should be banned entirely.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- grandalf 10y ago
  I think your take on this is a bit misleading. The only thing subject to being on the record would be specific quotes or statements by HRC. The rest of the article, the parts he was asking for approval on, were the journalistic conclusions he drew. He was asking for approval in case the campaign felt any of it was off message. There was also discussion of staying on message! It's absurd that candidates should be treated with such kid gloves. HRC should be happy to subject herself to whatever interviews, etc., from the nation's most respected paper simply to allow her side of the story to be noted. The predominant vibe should be adversarial, skeptical of her motives and promises, and doing the interview and reading the resulting piece should be unpleasant for the candidate. I know the NYT tailors the composition of various pages based on the print, afternoon, or online edition, etc., but throughout most of September and October, the pre-paywall politics section contained at least two flattering/fluffy stories about the HRC campaign every single day. I'm sure there are people who want to read that stuff, but they should be asking how she'll turn all the promises into law, why she waited to support gay marriage, why she allowed her cronies to sabotage Sanders' campaign on her behalf, etc. The NYT did none of that. So coupled with the very friendly treatment by Leibovich, the news org doesn't really seem much like a news org.

mudil 10y ago

The level of Democratic party and media cooperation is staggering. Media has effectively become a part of the liberal part of the government. The reason Wikileaks scandal got so little attention is because they all, CNN, NYT, etc, are in bed with each other. It's effectively a government-media complex. Interview with Julian Assange: https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4 https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4

grandalf 10y ago
> a part of the liberal part of the government It's not actually liberal. In reality it's quite conservative... moneyed, powerful interests shaping the messages that they want the public to consume. The idea that HRC is politically leftist is a bizarre bit of wizardry that is completely false and helps people who would vote for a leftward leaning candidate believe that she is on their side. It's arguable whether HRC or George H.W. Bush is further to the right... they are in a similar ballpark... the endorsement is not too farfetched, though normally party loyalty would have prevented it from being made public.
- skyrw 10y ago
  This election isn't Liberalism vs Conservatism, it's Corporatism vs Populism.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    I agree... HRC is a corporatist conservative and Trump is a populist conservative.
    - briandear 10y ago
      Neither one is conservative. Conservatism means small, limited government. Classical 'liberalism.' Both want large expansive governments -- the differences are in how they employ the machinery of government to achieve their ends.
    - burkaman 10y ago

thesagan 10y ago

Adding to your point: I sense they've taken a tacky and somewhat nannyish "guardian of democracy" approach in their headline selection lately. I like to be told the news, but it felt as if I was being told how I should be voting; it seemed manipulative and insulting to my intelligence and experience. I feel a sense of distrust between the news editors and their readers; that Citizen Kane feeling. That said, I thought David Brooks' latest piece was well-put.

iamdave 10y ago
>but it felt as if I was being told how I should be voting I've felt this sentiment since slightly before the conventions. Ask this independent voter why he's anxious for this to all be over? It's all the "Do you want Trump? Because that's how you get Trump" histrionics.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- fuqted 10y ago
  "Do you want Hillary?"
  - iamdave 10y ago
    That too.

moultano 10y ago

Your links don't match your description of them.

peterwwillis 10y ago
I thought he was talking about Wikileaks sabotaging Bernie and being the PR firm, but I realized he meant the NYT was doing it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2 10y ago

Yeah, that and acting as a PR agency for the Iraq war. Edit: Google "Judith Miller," then downvote.

gaur 10y ago
Why is this comment greyed out? The NYT shilled hard for the Iraq war. They even issued an apology because of it (too little too late, of course).
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  The Iraq War part is fine. Here's the NYT's post-mortem on that. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html?referer=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-... It's the "that and" part that is not. There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. There isn't even a Challabi-like informant in the Sanders camp trying to make that claim.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders I'm not a Sanders supporter but you don't need "evidence of collusion" to make that assertion. You just need to take a look at the NYT's own online archive. They waited until the last possible minute before they even began talking about Sanders -- or anyone else -- as a serious primary contender. Meanwhile, coverage of Clinton was almost a daily affair. Clinton was anointed by the press from the get-go, just as Trump was anointed with billions of dollars' worth of free publicity by the same media outlets. Their preferences were so obvious, in both cases, that the burden of proof belongs to those who claim otherwise.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Of course, the NYT covered Clinton more. She was the Senator of the state the newspaper is located in, she won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries, and she had recently been Secretary of State. She was obviously the frontrunner. The kind of coverage that the NYT gave Clinton wasn't more favorable than what it gave Sanders, on the other hand. The NYT broke the Clinton email story.

blintz 10y ago

"PR agency" is quite the stretch. If you read the actual email (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634) instead of the poor secondhand accounts you linked, you'll see that there's a staffer that says "I think it’s as good as we could hope for. We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF" This is a staffer saying that they talked the reporter from the NYT out of focusing on an area they didn't like. It shows the Hilary campaign is slimey, but it doesn't mean that the NYT has suddenly lost all credibility as a news source. It's not clear from the email that the reporter actually promised anything; it sounds equally probable that the Clinton people were just happy with the NYT's reporting. I also think (perhaps cynically) that this happens all the time, and is not a huge deal - sources try to angle the pieces journalists write about them, and selectively reveal information favorable to them, and journalists comply to varying degrees to get more information out of those sources in the future; it's not an ethical bright line - it's murky, and I doubt if you listened to all the communication that journalists had with their sources, you would find some stark ethical boundary between sources and journalists 100% of the time. All reporters talk to the people they are covering. There is always a risk of sources having undue control over a story, but this doesn't sound as extreme as you are making it out to be. We can't abandon a respected source of journalism just because there is a vague appearance of impropriety.

briandear 10y ago
I would argue the Clinton campaign isnt slimey because of this -- it's smart media relations. What does call credibility into question is The NY Times was "talked out of" reporting on something. An objective reporter would tell them to pound sand at a request to not report something.
- Angostura 10y ago
  The Clinton campaign's perception was they talked the reporter out of something. As an ex-journalist, I've no doubt that on many occasions a PR thought they had convinced me of something when they absolutely hadn't.
- totalZero 10y ago

monfrere 10y ago

I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be flattering, the PR people will obviously high-five themselves. When some part of the story is negative, the PR people will be disappointed and try to get the reporter to see their side. See this article [1] from Mark Leibovich for an NYT reporter's account of one of the issues addressed in your links. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
You would think people on hn would have internet access. Is there some sort of print & mail forwarding system I am unaware of? I haven't heard of any wikileaks censorship at least not in the US. Are there people on hn who have internet access, but are still in denial? Half of these comments sound so bizarre. Trolling?
throwaway_nyt 10y ago
You have very conveniently sweept it under normal PR behavior. And even used NYtimes link to debunk it all. Lovely. Nytimes pandered Iraq war hard to US masses, never believing in any political position they push. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN I have left out all the normal questions which journalists ask. Donna Brazile leaking CNN questions:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 DNC directing questions to Wolf Blitzer to ask to Donald/Cruz/Fiorina:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 NBC news first draft:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 (Don't know what he/she is talking about here) Newsweek story:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 DNC Chairman having meeting with MSNBC predisent:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 Sharing story before sharing with editor:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Jake Tapper questions:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 Journalists have been giving the campaign full stories before being published, will Clinton team not push back on any negative aspects? There are 2 3 other emails; one from a batch released a month ago and one around last week. Form your own opinions if they are journalists asking for a genuine access, or... Sorry for bad formatting...

fuqted 10y ago

From the headlines: >Inside Donald Trump's Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance >Optimism From Hillary Clinton and Darkness From Donald trump at Campaign's End >Donald Trump's Big Bet on Less Educated Whites

thght 10y ago
Indeed, that's how they do that, in the hope the horde will follow their made up winner. Unfortunately most media in this world are more corrupt than people are willing to believe.

throwanem 10y ago

No news agency anywhere merits trust. Many merit attention nonetheless; a thoughtful reader armed with knowledge of a given agency's bias and style can still derive useful information from its work, and every blue moon or so one finds a story that's actually true at face value. (Never count on it, though.) Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport, never more so than today. Whether you feel it a sport worth playing is your own lookout. (And a US presidential election is maybe not the best introduction to this perspective, unless you value full immersion, because it's the one time when absolutely everyone is guaranteed to be lying just as hard as they can - and all in the most meritorious of causes, of course.)

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport ------------------------------- >nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle... I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time... general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will &c &c. but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807) http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-57...