Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
________________________________________
How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
By Russ Baker [1] / WhoWhatWhy [2]
April 28, 2016
This article [3] was originally published at WhoWhatWhy.org [4].
Following a rough night in five East Coast primaries, Bernie Sanders' path
to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever
been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best
candidate is-or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media
wants Democrats to think?
In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times,
because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because
others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could
be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading
outfits.
In prior articles, we noted how the Timeshelped Clinton walk away with most
of the African-American vote-and therefore victory in many states-by
essentially hiding Sanders' [5] comparably far more impressive record on
civil rights [5].
We also noted [6] how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did
right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by
Sanders were minimized [7].
These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional
wisdom," which in turn so often determines outcomes.
But there is more-and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason
to claim she is so qualified to be president-aside from being First Lady and
senator-is her four years as Secretary of State.
What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push
for military engagement-more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars
altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars [8] and their dubious
[9]basis [9].
Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for
others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.
Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with
New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy
toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue,
and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the
media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.
And why did The New York Timeswait until two days afterthe New York primary
to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that
key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday
magazine.)
In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race,
highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How
Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk [10]was the digital equivalent of a huge
front-page story.
What the article makes clear-shockingly clear-is that Hillary Clinton is the
most militaristic of anyof the presidential candidates, even more than Ted
Cruz.
Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to
ensure that the paper could not be accused of influencing the primary
outcome?
The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without
mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches,
or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark
Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit
rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?
How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did
not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and
the policies she advocated-yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being
described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding Clinton from
criticism.
What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is
relevant-and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity-as
opposed to the arms industry.
The Times, Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here [11]
for one of WhoWhatWhy's stories of some of the goriest details.
Russ Baker is editor of WhoWhatWhy.com [12] and author of "Family of
Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden
History of the Last Fifty Years [13]."
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [14]
[15]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide
-hawk
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/russ-baker
[2] http://whowhatwhy.org/
[3]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/28/new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-hawk/
[4] http://whowhatwhy.org
[5]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/03/how-clinton-media-machine-blocked-sanders-c
ivil-rights-play/
[6]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/06/how-new-york-times-stacks-deck-against-sand
ers-trump/
[7]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/05/newsflash-sanderss-strength-character-hurt-
campaign/
[8]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2011/08/31/now-that-were-celebrating-qaddafis-end-can-
we-get-a-little-truth/
[9]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/12/21/connecting-the-dots-on-syria-fooling-enough
-of-the-people-enough-of-the-time/
[10]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk
.html
[11]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/30/mind-the-credibility-gap-syria-and-the-hist
ory-of-us-war-disinformation/
[12] http://whowhatwhy.com
[13] http://www.familyofsecrets.com/
[14] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on How the New York Times
Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
[15] http://www.alternet.org/
[16] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
By Russ Baker [1] / WhoWhatWhy [2]
April 28, 2016
This article [3] was originally published at WhoWhatWhy.org [4].
Following a rough night in five East Coast primaries, Bernie Sanders' path
to the Democratic nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever
been. But are these votes truly a referendum on who voters think the best
candidate is-or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate media
wants Democrats to think?
In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times,
because it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because
others look to the paper for coverage guidance. But the same critique could
be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and most other leading
outfits.
In prior articles, we noted how the Timeshelped Clinton walk away with most
of the African-American vote-and therefore victory in many states-by
essentially hiding Sanders' [5] comparably far more impressive record on
civil rights [5].
We also noted [6] how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did
right was billboarded, while significant victories against great odds by
Sanders were minimized [7].
These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional
wisdom," which in turn so often determines outcomes.
But there is more-and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason
to claim she is so qualified to be president-aside from being First Lady and
senator-is her four years as Secretary of State.
What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push
for military engagement-more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars
altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about these wars [8] and their dubious
[9]basis [9].
Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for
others who have been friendly to her and her campaign.
Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with
New York voters, a traditionally liberal group with a strong antipathy
toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring up this issue,
and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the
media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight.
And why did The New York Timeswait until two days afterthe New York primary
to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that
key contest? (It appeared first on its website and later in its Sunday
magazine.)
In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race,
highlighting her hawkishness turns it from a handicap to a strength. How
Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk [10]was the digital equivalent of a huge
front-page story.
What the article makes clear-shockingly clear-is that Hillary Clinton is the
most militaristic of anyof the presidential candidates, even more than Ted
Cruz.
Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to
ensure that the paper could not be accused of influencing the primary
outcome?
The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without
mentioning her refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches,
or her opposition to a paltry $15 an hour minimum wage). Would running Mark
Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like an implicit
rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?
How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did
not like, and has never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and
the policies she advocated-yet it is Bernie Sanders whose policies are being
described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding Clinton from
criticism.
What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is
relevant-and can have an impact? And one that is good for humanity-as
opposed to the arms industry.
The Times, Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go here [11]
for one of WhoWhatWhy's stories of some of the goriest details.
Russ Baker is editor of WhoWhatWhy.com [12] and author of "Family of
Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden
History of the Last Fifty Years [13]."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [14]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[15]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide
-hawk
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/russ-baker
[2] http://whowhatwhy.org/
[3]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/28/new-york-times-helped-hillary-hide-hawk/
[4] http://whowhatwhy.org
[5]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/03/how-clinton-media-machine-blocked-sanders-c
ivil-rights-play/
[6]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/03/06/how-new-york-times-stacks-deck-against-sand
ers-trump/
[7]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/05/newsflash-sanderss-strength-character-hurt-
campaign/
[8]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2011/08/31/now-that-were-celebrating-qaddafis-end-can-
we-get-a-little-truth/
[9]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/12/21/connecting-the-dots-on-syria-fooling-enough
-of-the-people-enough-of-the-time/
[10]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk
.html
[11]
http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/30/mind-the-credibility-gap-syria-and-the-hist
ory-of-us-war-disinformation/
[12] http://whowhatwhy.com
[13] http://www.familyofsecrets.com/
[14] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on How the New York Times
Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk
[15] http://www.alternet.org/
[16] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
