Hillary Clinton's Favorite Mouthpiece: The New York Times
Friday, 15 April 2016 12:55 By Xavier Flory, Truthout | Op-Ed
Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign event at Industry City in the
Brooklyn borough of New York, April 9, 2016. (Hilary Swift / The New York
Times)
After Gawker revealed that a journalist at The Atlantic was bribed by
Hillary Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines into describing one of Clinton's
speeches as "muscular" and mentioning certain members of the audience in
exchange for an advance copy of the speech, it came out that Mark Landler of
The New York Times used the same descriptions. Landler denied any
wrongdoing, and The New York Times' public editor Margaret Sullivan declared
him "thoroughly credible."
In an email to me, Landler wrote that he couldn't recall whether he had
received an advance copy of the speech, and at the time of writing, Sullivan
had not responded to my query about whether anyone at The Times demanded to
see the correspondence between Landler and the Clinton staff. More
importantly, the claim that there was no explicit quid pro quo only
highlights that there doesn't need to be one in order for the newspaper to
cover Clinton exactly as she wants.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
In The Times' blow-by-blow account of Clinton's leadership in the NATO
intervention, we learned that "from the earliest days of the Libya debate,
Mrs. Clinton was a diligent student and unrelenting inquisitor, absorbing
fat briefing books, inviting dissenting views from subordinates, studying
foreign counterparts to learn how to win them over. She was a pragmatist,
willing to improvise -- to try the bank-shot solution."
This fawning account of Clinton's work habits obfuscates what the reporter
is actually describing. In billiards, a bank shot involves hitting the ball
against a cushion so that it rebounds in a different direction. It is a
counterintuitive shot, in this case supporting democracy by backing rebels
who Clinton knew "summarily execute[d] all foreign mercenaries." As had been
reported, the "foreign mercenaries" in question tended to be Black people
targeted for racial cleansing.
OUR "NEWSPAPER OF RECORD" IS DEEPLY ENMESHED IN OUR POLITICAL ELITE.
"Mrs. Clinton certainly understood how hard the transition to a post-Qaddafi
Libya would be." The article supports this claim by quoting Clinton as
saying that political change had been hard in Egypt, "so imagine how
difficult it will be in a country like Libya ... [Muammar el-Qaddafi] ruled
for 42 years by basically destroying all institutions and never even
creating an army, so that it could not be used against him." She was right,
but the reporter fails to explore what, beyond the official talking points,
might have prompted her to champion the NATO-led bombing anyway.
An interesting place to start would have been an email from Sidney
Blumenthal (a veteran Clinton hatchet man dating back to the Monica Lewinsky
era, who was paid $10,000 per month by the Clinton Foundation during the
Libya crisis while also pursuing business interests there) to Clinton laying
out then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy's motivations for the intervention
that boiled down to "a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil
production" and an opportunity for France to "reassert its position in the
world."
The email also mentions Qaddafi's plan to create a gold-backed currency that
would have competed with the dollar and euro. The Times doesn't entertain
the hypothesis that NATO wanted to keep Libya financially dependent,
although it would help explain why NATO deliberately destroyed a $33 billion
irrigation system funded without foreign debt that provided water for more
than half of Libya. As the exposé goes to disconcerting pains to illustrate,
Clinton is no dupe, and so it's unlikely she believed the "humanitarian
intervention" would improve conditions in Libya.
But in 12,000 words, the exposé never raises the possibility that Clinton
might have had other motives. As Scott Shane, one of the two authors,
explained to me in an email, the goal
was to examine how the decision was made by the Obama administration to join
the military intervention in Libya; how that initial decision to protect
civilians from Qaddafi's forces evolved into a decision to overthrow him;
why the US did so little in Libya after Qaddafi's fall; and what the results
have been. So we talked mainly, though not exclusively, to the people who
actually made the decisions or helped make them -- Americans, Libyans, the
French. Outsiders might have opinions, but they would have little insight
into how these decisions were made.
A probing account of the inside process would have been instructive. But the
reporters simply took the insiders' account of the inside process at face
value. Thus the essential issues -- Sidney Blumenthal's compromising
business affiliations and his influence on Clinton, the Obama
administration's underlying interests in bombing Libya and the use of the
Clinton Foundation as a back door to Hillary Clinton -- are never even
raised.
Instead, the Clinton Foundation isn't mentioned, Blumenthal is described as
an "old friend and political adviser" and the piece ends with a first-person
articulation of the Hillary Clinton doctrine: "'We have learned the hard way
when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are
consequences,' she said at a House hearing on Benghazi in October,
articulating what sounded like a guiding principle. 'Extremism takes root,
aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened,
including here at home.'"
Covering the Coronation
Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye so long -- and bifurcates public
opinion so reliably -- that it's not clear how much a single article could
affect perceptions of her. Going into the Democratic primaries, however,
Bernie Sanders was a virtual unknown in most of the United States, and the
most influential newspaper in the country had a responsibility to introduce
him substantively. Instead, in September 2015, The New York Times' public
editor had to apologize:
The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders's campaign, but it hasn't always taken
it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even
mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance
and style, rather than what he has to say.
The editor goes on to justify the mistake: "Given Hillary Rodham Clinton as
such a dominant candidate, with widespread support, lots of money and the
Democratic Party's likely imprimatur, almost any other Democratic candidate
looked like an also-ran."
In other words, five months before the first votes were cast, The New York
Times didn't feel that its job was to provide equal coverage of the five
Democratic candidates so that voters could look beyond the choice of the
Democratic Party and donor class and decide for themselves.
The newspaper constantly groups Sanders with Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump: "Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Voters Share Anger,
but Direct It Differently"; "Anxious Dramas for the Age of Trump and
Sanders"; "The Trump-Sanders Fantasy." David Brooks is particularly adept at
the smear: "It's striking how many Americans have responded by going for
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who are bad versions of the bounding
in/we-can-change-everything doggy type."
Back in 2010, after Brooks wrote an article deemed unflattering, Clinton
adviser Jake Sullivan wrote to Philippe Reines (the same one who bribed The
Atlantic journalist), "An OTR conversation with you is the best way to help
guys like Brooks 'figure out' how things work." A couple of months later,
Clinton's then-director of policy planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter, sent a
Brooks op-ed to Clinton with the subject line, "JUST A LITTLE
SELF-PROMOTION." The email says, "Just thought you would like to see this --
it's for all the ideas you wanted promoted when you picked me."
The Times sticks to the Clinton narrative even in its news coverage by
failing to provide relevant information, leaving matters to "he said, she
said" or simply using an allegation. An article titled "7 Democrats in
Congress Say Clinton Email Inquiry Is 'Too Politicized'" fails to mention
that all seven signatories had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Bill
Clinton's February 2016 rant against Sanders in New Hampshire is
regurgitated without any context for his various allegations:
Criticizing Mr. Sanders's hastily presented health care plan, which Mr.
Clinton claimed the Vermont senator had already disavowed, the former
president asked: 'Is it good for America? I don't think so. Is it good for
New Hampshire? I don't think so.'"
Far from analyzing Clinton's accusations, the reporter reinforces them.
Sanders' health care plan is "hastily presented," and the verifiably false
claim that Sanders disavowed his own health care plan is left unquestioned.
Sanders' difficulties with Black voters are well documented, and they were
not aided when national correspondent Richard Fausset let a prominent
Democrat malign the candidate without fact-checking him. "Representative
John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, a hero of the civil rights movement, cast
doubts on Mr. Sanders's civil rights credentials," he writes, without
mentioning that Sanders was arrested during the civil rights movement and
that Lewis' assertion about meeting the Clintons during the 1960s was
contradicted by his own previous statements.
If The New York Times spent less time covering polls and more time covering
records, perhaps its opinion pages would stop propagating the Clinton myth
that she is the progressive who actually gets things done. Despite her
much-touted resume, Clinton has only held two government posts. In the
Senate, Clinton sponsored three bills that became law, the same number as
Sanders. Of those, only Sanders' bill to increase veterans' compensation was
substantial. In her second job as US secretary of state, Clinton's one
arguably "progressive" initiative was the reset with Russia, and it was a
disaster. Besides that, she was championing regime change in Honduras and
Libya, and heralding the "groundbreaking" Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But the more insidious fiction behind the narrative that Clinton is the
progressive who gets things done, a fiction happily taken up by The Times,
is that the essential difference between Sanders and Clinton -- between the
first lady who called African Americans "superpredators" and the picketer
arrested during the civil rights movement, between the champion of a
military coup in Honduras who supported deporting Honduran child refugees
and the mayor who visited Nicaragua to oppose Ronald Reagan's meddling,
between Goldman Sachs' old friend and Wall Street's most vocal opponent,
between, finally, the senator who went along with the bipartisan Iraq war
and Patriot Act, and the congressman who knows that when people are "swept
away unthinkingly by what everybody else does and believes in," refusing to
join in is itself a vital form of action -- is one of method, and not of
intellectual and ethical substance.
Whose Watchdog?
Back in 2003, New York Times reporter James Risen was prevented from
publishing an investigation on a covert CIA effort to undermine Iran's
nuclear program by his own editors after CIA Director George Tenet and
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice urged the newspaper to hold the
story. A year later, Risen and fellow journalist Eric Lichtblau were barred
from publishing a report of how the National Security Agency collected
details of Americans' telephone and email communications without reference
to a search warrant. Risen described the discovery as "my biggest story of
the post-9/11 age," but the White House was able to convince The New York
Times' then-executive editor Bill Keller to shelve the story. In 2005, with
Risen ready to publish the NSA story as part of his new book, The New York
Times beat him to it and published the original story. Risen won a Pulitzer
Prize.
The Times' willingness to bend to the will of the White House shows there
doesn't need to be explicit bribery; our "newspaper of record" is deeply
enmeshed in our political elite. Its coverage of the Democratic primaries
shows that the newspaper's endorsement of Hillary Clinton goes well beyond
the editorial board. Throughout this campaign, it has consistently chosen to
focus on polls rather than records, quotes rather than facts, and has proven
a faithful mouthpiece of the Clinton candidacy. It seems to have abdicated
its mission to write "without fear or favor," and one can only imagine what
a robust watchdog it would be to a second Clinton administration.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
XAVIER FLORY
Xavier Flory has written for The New York Times and the New Republic, among
others. He is currently a Michel David Weill Scholar in France.
RELATED STORIES
New York Times Uncovers Conservative Attacks, Then Prints One: All on Front
Page
By George Lakoff, Truthout | Opinion
New York Times Abandons Distinction Between News and Editorial Page to Push
Trade Deal
By Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research | Op-Ed
New York Times' Runoff Coverage Reflects Hand of Behind Scenes Press Handler
Rahm Emanuel
By RA Monaco, Truthout | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton's Favorite Mouthpiece: The New York Times
Friday, 15 April 2016 12:55 By Xavier Flory, Truthout | Op-Ed
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign event at Industry City in
the Brooklyn borough of New York, April 9, 2016. (Hilary Swift / The New
York Times)
After Gawker revealed that a journalist at The Atlantic was bribed
by Hillary Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines into describing one of
Clinton's speeches as "muscular" and mentioning certain members of the
audience in exchange for an advance copy of the speech, it came out that
Mark Landler of The New York Times used the same descriptions. Landler
denied any wrongdoing, and The New York Times' public editor Margaret
Sullivan declared him "thoroughly credible."
In an email to me, Landler wrote that he couldn't recall whether he had
received an advance copy of the speech, and at the time of writing, Sullivan
had not responded to my query about whether anyone at The Times demanded to
see the correspondence between Landler and the Clinton staff. More
importantly, the claim that there was no explicit quid pro quo only
highlights that there doesn't need to be one in order for the newspaper to
cover Clinton exactly as she wants.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election
section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
In The Times' blow-by-blow account of Clinton's leadership in the NATO
intervention, we learned that "from the earliest days of the Libya debate,
Mrs. Clinton was a diligent student and unrelenting inquisitor, absorbing
fat briefing books, inviting dissenting views from subordinates, studying
foreign counterparts to learn how to win them over. She was a pragmatist,
willing to improvise -- to try the bank-shot solution."
This fawning account of Clinton's work habits obfuscates what the reporter
is actually describing. In billiards, a bank shot involves hitting the ball
against a cushion so that it rebounds in a different direction. It is a
counterintuitive shot, in this case supporting democracy by backing rebels
who Clinton knew "summarily execute[d] all foreign mercenaries." As had been
reported, the "foreign mercenaries" in question tended to be Black people
targeted for racial cleansing.
Our "newspaper of record" is deeply enmeshed in our political elite.
"Mrs. Clinton certainly understood how hard the transition to a post-Qaddafi
Libya would be." The article supports this claim by quoting Clinton as
saying that political change had been hard in Egypt, "so imagine how
difficult it will be in a country like Libya ... [Muammar el-Qaddafi] ruled
for 42 years by basically destroying all institutions and never even
creating an army, so that it could not be used against him." She was right,
but the reporter fails to explore what, beyond the official talking points,
might have prompted her to champion the NATO-led bombing anyway.
An interesting place to start would have been an email from Sidney
Blumenthal (a veteran Clinton hatchet man dating back to the Monica Lewinsky
era, who was paid $10,000 per month by the Clinton Foundation during the
Libya crisis while also pursuing business interests there) to Clinton laying
out then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy's motivations for the intervention
that boiled down to "a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil
production" and an opportunity for France to "reassert its position in the
world."
The email also mentions Qaddafi's plan to create a gold-backed currency that
would have competed with the dollar and euro. The Times doesn't entertain
the hypothesis that NATO wanted to keep Libya financially dependent,
although it would help explain why NATO deliberately destroyed a $33 billion
irrigation system funded without foreign debt that provided water for more
than half of Libya. As the exposé goes to disconcerting pains to illustrate,
Clinton is no dupe, and so it's unlikely she believed the "humanitarian
intervention" would improve conditions in Libya.
But in 12,000 words, the exposé never raises the possibility that Clinton
might have had other motives. As Scott Shane, one of the two authors,
explained to me in an email, the goal
was to examine how the decision was made by the Obama administration to join
the military intervention in Libya; how that initial decision to protect
civilians from Qaddafi's forces evolved into a decision to overthrow him;
why the US did so little in Libya after Qaddafi's fall; and what the results
have been. So we talked mainly, though not exclusively, to the people who
actually made the decisions or helped make them -- Americans, Libyans, the
French. Outsiders might have opinions, but they would have little insight
into how these decisions were made.
A probing account of the inside process would have been instructive. But the
reporters simply took the insiders' account of the inside process at face
value. Thus the essential issues -- Sidney Blumenthal's compromising
business affiliations and his influence on Clinton, the Obama
administration's underlying interests in bombing Libya and the use of the
Clinton Foundation as a back door to Hillary Clinton -- are never even
raised.
Instead, the Clinton Foundation isn't mentioned, Blumenthal is described as
an "old friend and political adviser" and the piece ends with a first-person
articulation of the Hillary Clinton doctrine: "'We have learned the hard way
when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are
consequences,' she said at a House hearing on Benghazi in October,
articulating what sounded like a guiding principle. 'Extremism takes root,
aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened,
including here at home.'"
Covering the Coronation
Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye so long -- and bifurcates public
opinion so reliably -- that it's not clear how much a single article could
affect perceptions of her. Going into the Democratic primaries, however,
Bernie Sanders was a virtual unknown in most of the United States, and the
most influential newspaper in the country had a responsibility to introduce
him substantively. Instead, in September 2015, The New York Times' public
editor had to apologize:
The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders's campaign, but it hasn't always taken
it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even
mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance
and style, rather than what he has to say.
The editor goes on to justify the mistake: "Given Hillary Rodham Clinton as
such a dominant candidate, with widespread support, lots of money and the
Democratic Party's likely imprimatur, almost any other Democratic candidate
looked like an also-ran."
In other words, five months before the first votes were cast, The New York
Times didn't feel that its job was to provide equal coverage of the five
Democratic candidates so that voters could look beyond the choice of the
Democratic Party and donor class and decide for themselves.
The newspaper constantly groups Sanders with Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump: "Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Voters Share Anger,
but Direct It Differently"; "Anxious Dramas for the Age of Trump and
Sanders"; "The Trump-Sanders Fantasy." David Brooks is particularly adept at
the smear: "It's striking how many Americans have responded by going for
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who are bad versions of the bounding
in/we-can-change-everything doggy type."
Back in 2010, after Brooks wrote an article deemed unflattering, Clinton
adviser Jake Sullivan wrote to Philippe Reines (the same one who bribed The
Atlantic journalist), "An OTR conversation with you is the best way to help
guys like Brooks 'figure out' how things work." A couple of months later,
Clinton's then-director of policy planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter, sent a
Brooks op-ed to Clinton with the subject line, "JUST A LITTLE
SELF-PROMOTION." The email says, "Just thought you would like to see this
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29411-- it's for all the ideas
you wanted promoted when you picked me."
The Times sticks to the Clinton narrative even in its news coverage by
failing to provide relevant information, leaving matters to "he said, she
said" or simply using an allegation. An article titled "7 Democrats in
Congress Say Clinton Email Inquiry Is 'Too Politicized'" fails to mention
that all seven signatories had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Bill
Clinton's February 2016 rant against Sanders in New Hampshire is
regurgitated without any context for his various allegations:
Criticizing Mr. Sanders's hastily presented health care plan, which Mr.
Clinton claimed the Vermont senator had already disavowed, the former
president asked: 'Is it good for America? I don't think so. Is it good for
New Hampshire? I don't think so.'"
Far from analyzing Clinton's accusations, the reporter reinforces them.
Sanders' health care plan is "hastily presented," and the verifiably false
claim that Sanders disavowed his own health care plan is left unquestioned.
Sanders' difficulties with Black voters are well documented, and they were
not aided when national correspondent Richard Fausset let a prominent
Democrat malign the candidate without fact-checking him. "Representative
John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, a hero of the civil rights movement, cast
doubts on Mr. Sanders's civil rights credentials," he writes, without
mentioning that Sanders was arrested during the civil rights movement and
that Lewis' assertion about meeting the Clintons during the 1960s was
contradicted by his own previous statements.
If The New York Times spent less time covering polls and more time covering
records, perhaps its opinion pages would stop propagating the Clinton myth
that she is the progressive who actually gets things done. Despite her
much-touted resume, Clinton has only held two government posts. In the
Senate, Clinton sponsored three bills that became law, the same number as
Sanders. Of those, only Sanders' bill to increase veterans' compensation was
substantial. In her second job as US secretary of state, Clinton's one
arguably "progressive" initiative was the reset with Russia, and it was a
disaster. Besides that, she was championing regime change in Honduras and
Libya, and heralding the "groundbreaking" Trans-Pacific Partnership.
But the more insidious fiction behind the narrative that Clinton is the
progressive who gets things done, a fiction happily taken up by The Times,
is that the essential difference between Sanders and Clinton -- between the
first lady who called African Americans "superpredators" and the picketer
arrested during the civil rights movement, between the champion of a
military coup in Honduras who supported deporting Honduran child refugees
and the mayor who visited Nicaragua to oppose Ronald Reagan's meddling,
between Goldman Sachs' old friend and Wall Street's most vocal opponent,
between, finally, the senator who went along with the bipartisan Iraq war
and Patriot Act, and the congressman who knows that when people are "swept
away unthinkingly by what everybody else does and believes in," refusing to
join in is itself a vital form of action -- is one of method, and not of
intellectual and ethical substance.
Whose Watchdog?
Back in 2003, New York Times reporter James Risen was prevented from
publishing an investigation on a covert CIA effort to undermine Iran's
nuclear program by his own editors after CIA Director George Tenet and
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice urged the newspaper to hold the
story. A year later, Risen and fellow journalist Eric Lichtblau were barred
from publishing a report of how the National Security Agency collected
details of Americans' telephone and email communications without reference
to a search warrant. Risen described the discovery as "my biggest story of
the post-9/11 age," but the White House was able to convince The New York
Times' then-executive editor Bill Keller to shelve the story. In 2005, with
Risen ready to publish the NSA story as part of his new book, The New York
Times beat him to it and published the original story. Risen won a Pulitzer
Prize.
The Times' willingness to bend to the will of the White House shows there
doesn't need to be explicit bribery; our "newspaper of record" is deeply
enmeshed in our political elite. Its coverage of the Democratic primaries
shows that the newspaper's endorsement of Hillary Clinton goes well beyond
the editorial board. Throughout this campaign, it has consistently chosen to
focus on polls rather than records, quotes rather than facts, and has proven
a faithful mouthpiece of the Clinton candidacy. It seems to have abdicated
its mission to write "without fear or favor," and one can only imagine what
a robust watchdog it would be to a second Clinton administration.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Xavier Flory
Xavier Flory has written for The New York Times and the New Republic, among
others. He is currently a Michel David Weill Scholar in France.
Related Stories
New York Times Uncovers Conservative Attacks, Then Prints One: All on Front
Page
By George Lakoff, Truthout | OpinionNew York Times Abandons Distinction
Between News and Editorial Page to Push Trade Deal
By Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research | Op-EdNew York
Times' Runoff Coverage Reflects Hand of Behind Scenes Press Handler Rahm
Emanuel
By RA Monaco, Truthout | Op-Ed
Show Comments
