Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,080 posts)
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 08:10 PM Nov 2014

Promoting Hillary, The New York Times Once Again Marginalizes the Left


via truthdig:



Harper’s Magazine Publisher Rick MacArthur bewailed the failure of The New York Times to run anything but the most establishment liberal view in its pages when the paper interpreted the Republican victory in the November midterm elections as an open opportunity for Hillary Clinton to “resurrect the Democratic Party.”

MacArthur wrote in his column in the Providence Journal on Nov. 20:

A typical media “analysis” was provided by The New York Times, which almost immediately started promoting the inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s nomination as the next Democratic candidate for president. “Midterms, for Clinton Team, Aren’t All Gloom” declared its front-page headline on Nov. 7. According to the paper’s reporter, Amy Chozick, the misfortune of President Obama and Senate Majority (soon-to-be-Minority) Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) equaled good news for Mrs. Clinton and her “advisers,” among whom “a consensus formed … that it is time to accelerate her schedule.” This move toward a more rapid coronation was due to “pressure” on the former First Lady “to resurrect the Democratic Party,” since Mrs. Clinton is “already being scrutinized as the party’s presumptive nominee.”


With a Democrat in the White House and Republicans holding only a slight majority in the Senate, MacArthur suggests that the word “resurrect” seems “hyperbolic.” And couldn’t low voter turnout in the midterms indicate dissatisfaction with Democrats as well as Republicans?

Two paragraphs after the excerpts quoted above, “the Times dropped any pretense of fair and balanced reporting by presenting the institutional voice of people who have very little interest in journalism, or, for that matter, democracy,” MacArthur wrote. According to Chozick and her editors, “In many ways, Tuesday’s election results clear a path for Mrs. Clinton. The lopsided outcome and conservative tilt makes it less likely she would face an insurgent challenger from the left.”

That opinion, says MacArthur, is based either on Chozick’s laziness or her editors’ preference for a Clinton candidacy. “But whatever the motivation, the assertion that Hillary’s path is clear was pulled out of the air. ......................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/the_new_york_times_marginalizes_the_left_once_again_20141130



3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Promoting Hillary, The New York Times Once Again Marginalizes the Left (Original Post) marmar Nov 2014 OP
NYTimes "Media Darling""? NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #1
And you thought different. Wellstone ruled Nov 2014 #2
Since MacArthur is fond of quotating just about everything for emphasis, Simeon Salus Dec 2014 #3
 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
2. And you thought different.
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 08:52 PM
Nov 2014

Get real,the left wing bash started the day after the mid terms. Clinton's are the darlings of Wall Street and the 1 % ers. If for one minute you think other,got some beach front here in the Mohave Desert,and so it goes.

Simeon Salus

(1,142 posts)
3. Since MacArthur is fond of quotating just about everything for emphasis,
Mon Dec 1, 2014, 12:37 AM
Dec 2014

I'm surprised there are no quotation marks around "coronation." I've got news. There WILL be a primary, and Hillary didn't do so well last time, even though she was the presumptive nominee well before the primaries began.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Promoting Hillary, The Ne...