She's drawing a distinction between an editor telling a journalist to write a negative piece, and the journalist freely writing one anyway. This is a meaningful

She's drawing a distinction between an editor telling a journalist to write a negative piece, and the journalist freely writing one anyway. This is a meaningful distinction between things, but probably not how most of us would define a hit piece. I think most of us would define a hit piece as an article intended to give a falsely negative impression by misleading the reader. This is a critical point, because some of the NYT article is negative but fair, while some of it is taking extraordinary liberties with the truth through omission and guilt-by-association, and it's the latter that makes it a hit piece. To say that Scott allowed white supremacists in his comments provided they didn't do anything too awful is a criticism based in fact, and the reader can decide how bad it is, but to imply Scott himself is a racist because he agreed with Charles Murray on a UBI is what makes it a hit piece.