If you’d prefer to hear today’s newsletter, click play. Note to longtime PRESS RUN readers: Please consider subscribing for $6 a month. Thanks! Stay healthy. Be kind. Anxious to engage in Both Sides whitewashing of journalism failures from the Trump era, some prominent journalists are lashing out at liberals for having the nerve to criticize news coverage of the Biden White House. Leading the defensive charge is
And I can’t find a link just yet, but when I do I’ll show you Maureen Dowd, who says we don’t know what a reporter is, getting caught “covering” two campaign rallies hundreds of miles away at the same time.
I was afraid to take my blood pressure after reading this jaw-dropping WaPo article yesterday:
“Once Trump’s ‘enemy,’ Fed emerges as White House ally in rejecting concerns about overdoing stimulus”
The article implies that Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell are biased and colluding to support Biden which it says “can be a risky place for the central bank”. The article proclaims this “.....is tricky ground for the Fed, which has spent decades professing its independence from politics and as a guardian against inflation”. How in the world is the fact that two of our most experienced experts at managing the economy agreeing on the need for a big stimulus a risky thing just because it is also what our evidence-based adminstration also thinks? Clearly the implication is that this is an optics problem because they just happen to agree on the facts.
The article starts out saying “prominent economists” are concerned that the bill will overstimulate the economy, ignoring the fact that 120 prominent economists signed on to a letter urging Congress to pass the bill. Halfway through the article the author gets around to presenting the other side of the issue but the article is clearly framed as evidence of Yellen and Powell acting for political reasons, to help Biden.
Also the article is more as a he says/she says debate because it doesn’t do enough to present the evidence that shows inflation is not the problem it was in the 70s and 80s, or point out that if it were such a threat inflation would have happened under Trump when the economy was a full employment and he had pumped unneeded money into it with his tax cuts. Of course the article does mention the problem of too much debt without mentioning Trump blowing it up.
This article is an example of how the media skews reporting in a way that aids Republican obstruction and weakens Democrats attempts to fix the serious problems our country faces.
Maureen Dowd’s singular obsession with all things Clinton was a contributing factor in my cancellation of a decades long subscription. There was no journalist integrity in her so called reporting. Only what I can only assume was jealousy
So a WaPo reporter does oppo research, gets criticized for it, and Maureen Dowd takes umbrage and tells us WE don't know what a reporter is? <insert laugh track> And Dean Baquet decides that his "reporters," whom Dowd believes have a sacred obligation to tell it like it is, cannot explore the distinct possibility that Trump's endless dishonesty is a symptom of mental illness. But it is we, the libs, who don't understand journalism. Pass the tequila.
Lay the blame where it belongs on Howell Raines whose obsessive hatred of the Clintons seeped into every facet of the paper that gladly let Judith Miller post lie after lie on the front page whipping up the war fever that killed my son.
There is nothing that corporate propaganda rag can ever do to atone for killing him and thousands of others because Dumbya wanted to even the score for Daddy.
Maureen, dost thou protest too much? When I read the quote in her column y’day about the Vanity Fair Oscar party with date Sulzberger I rolled my eyes as that is typical Dowd who drops names and French bon mots every chance she gets, a snob in her own right I dare say. Seems she was trying to make immunize herself from her own critique. Imo it’s way too soon to start bashing Biden with overblown and overly bloated criticism of stuff he hasn’t done yet. Conflict for conflict’s sake. So tiresome. Really.
It's just rich. Enough said on my end. She's always pandered to the news of the day. She was horrible to Clinton. I no longer pay any attention to her. But I know people do. Thanks for writing this.
And the complimentary tweet that Neera Tanden wrote about Lisa Murkowski? Was that shown to her by the reporter as well? Highly doubt it because why? The story wouldn't have been as good!
Grand Wizard MoDodo--and I call her that because of her decade of racist infantilization attempts against "Barry Obama"--look it up--actually used to be able to write well at times. Now she's joined Peggy Noonan in the department of pathetic self-parody.
But I must point out when I caught on to her, and it was before she became a columnist. She and Tom Friedman did a big Times profile of George Bush and James Baker, and the gist was that Poppy was the nice guy who was kind of naive and Baker was the tough one. I thought, you two cover those beats and think someone who was CIA director, RNC chair, and an ambassador isn't a nasty so-and-so? Either you are totally stupid and naive, or you are so dependent on keeping them as sources that you think the readers are totally stupid and naive.
Maureen Dowd, a New Yorker, said Trump would be better than Hillary before 2016 election. After election, no mea culpa on picking Trump. Attacked Trump as if she was always against him. There is a whole slew of reporters and opinion writers that fall into this category.
Down lambasted Hillary Clinton for twenty years and the day after Trump won, she wrote a column that said "How could people be so stupid, voting for Trump?" Dowd is the most self-unaware person on the planet.
Dowd hasn’t been relevant or important for decades. She gets, however, to one of my pet rants: the more important the story, the likelier the Times’ reporting is rap. Or worse.
And the Kim affair, specially her response to Eric, elides the real problem with showing the tweet to Murkowski: Tanden’s nasty tweets are a problem in a way Trump’s never were. Every reporter covering Tanden and her tweets should ask every senator who are against her confirmation why they’re a problem when Trump’s tweets never were a problem — even the tweets with which he promoted his literally murderous response to the pandemic. For that matter, another question is how many of her tweets were nasty and how many were characterized as nasty because they referenced facts which only rarely supports the GOP and hence might appear nasty.
I’ve long been convinced that the fabulists, er, columnists for the NYT write for their friends and neighbors on the Upper West Side and that they sometime venture to the Upper East Side when they must. The NYTimes is essentially Patch for one neighborhood, with society pages.
I don't care what Seung Min Kim says, what she did was something they do over at Project Veritas or Sasha Baron Cohen.
Her goal was to move the needle on which way Lisa Murkowski would vote and then proudly claim she was the first to do in Neera Tanden.
Clearly, Lisa was unaware of the tweet so I call into question Miss Kim's characterization that it had already been reported on. If it did, then Lisa needs to hire some new aids.
Oh look, here’s Maureen Dowd, who says we don’t know what a reporter is, assuring an interview subject that she’s gonna make her look great and showing the column to her husband before it’s published: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/12/dowd-showed-interviewee-column-before-publishing.html
Oh look, here’s Maureen Dowd, who says we don’t know what a reporter is, plagiarizing Josh Marshall: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/05/18/the-maureen-dowd-plagiarism-scandal/amp/
Oh look here’s Maureen Dowd, who says we don’t know what a reporter is, saying last year that the Biden-Harris ticket is the first Dem ticket with a woman on it in 36 years: https://www.thewrap.com/hillary-clinton-scolds-ny-times-maureen-dowd-for-forgetting-her-2016-run-too-much-pot-brownie/amp/
And I can’t find a link just yet, but when I do I’ll show you Maureen Dowd, who says we don’t know what a reporter is, getting caught “covering” two campaign rallies hundreds of miles away at the same time.
I was afraid to take my blood pressure after reading this jaw-dropping WaPo article yesterday:
“Once Trump’s ‘enemy,’ Fed emerges as White House ally in rejecting concerns about overdoing stimulus”
The article implies that Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell are biased and colluding to support Biden which it says “can be a risky place for the central bank”. The article proclaims this “.....is tricky ground for the Fed, which has spent decades professing its independence from politics and as a guardian against inflation”. How in the world is the fact that two of our most experienced experts at managing the economy agreeing on the need for a big stimulus a risky thing just because it is also what our evidence-based adminstration also thinks? Clearly the implication is that this is an optics problem because they just happen to agree on the facts.
The article starts out saying “prominent economists” are concerned that the bill will overstimulate the economy, ignoring the fact that 120 prominent economists signed on to a letter urging Congress to pass the bill. Halfway through the article the author gets around to presenting the other side of the issue but the article is clearly framed as evidence of Yellen and Powell acting for political reasons, to help Biden.
Also the article is more as a he says/she says debate because it doesn’t do enough to present the evidence that shows inflation is not the problem it was in the 70s and 80s, or point out that if it were such a threat inflation would have happened under Trump when the economy was a full employment and he had pumped unneeded money into it with his tax cuts. Of course the article does mention the problem of too much debt without mentioning Trump blowing it up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/02/28/fed-biden-inflation-19-trillion-stimulus/
This article is an example of how the media skews reporting in a way that aids Republican obstruction and weakens Democrats attempts to fix the serious problems our country faces.
Maureen Dowd’s singular obsession with all things Clinton was a contributing factor in my cancellation of a decades long subscription. There was no journalist integrity in her so called reporting. Only what I can only assume was jealousy
So a WaPo reporter does oppo research, gets criticized for it, and Maureen Dowd takes umbrage and tells us WE don't know what a reporter is? <insert laugh track> And Dean Baquet decides that his "reporters," whom Dowd believes have a sacred obligation to tell it like it is, cannot explore the distinct possibility that Trump's endless dishonesty is a symptom of mental illness. But it is we, the libs, who don't understand journalism. Pass the tequila.
This is why I subscribe to Press Run. Well done!
Lay the blame where it belongs on Howell Raines whose obsessive hatred of the Clintons seeped into every facet of the paper that gladly let Judith Miller post lie after lie on the front page whipping up the war fever that killed my son.
There is nothing that corporate propaganda rag can ever do to atone for killing him and thousands of others because Dumbya wanted to even the score for Daddy.
Maureen, dost thou protest too much? When I read the quote in her column y’day about the Vanity Fair Oscar party with date Sulzberger I rolled my eyes as that is typical Dowd who drops names and French bon mots every chance she gets, a snob in her own right I dare say. Seems she was trying to make immunize herself from her own critique. Imo it’s way too soon to start bashing Biden with overblown and overly bloated criticism of stuff he hasn’t done yet. Conflict for conflict’s sake. So tiresome. Really.
It's just rich. Enough said on my end. She's always pandered to the news of the day. She was horrible to Clinton. I no longer pay any attention to her. But I know people do. Thanks for writing this.
And the complimentary tweet that Neera Tanden wrote about Lisa Murkowski? Was that shown to her by the reporter as well? Highly doubt it because why? The story wouldn't have been as good!
Grand Wizard MoDodo--and I call her that because of her decade of racist infantilization attempts against "Barry Obama"--look it up--actually used to be able to write well at times. Now she's joined Peggy Noonan in the department of pathetic self-parody.
But I must point out when I caught on to her, and it was before she became a columnist. She and Tom Friedman did a big Times profile of George Bush and James Baker, and the gist was that Poppy was the nice guy who was kind of naive and Baker was the tough one. I thought, you two cover those beats and think someone who was CIA director, RNC chair, and an ambassador isn't a nasty so-and-so? Either you are totally stupid and naive, or you are so dependent on keeping them as sources that you think the readers are totally stupid and naive.
Maureen Dowd, a New Yorker, said Trump would be better than Hillary before 2016 election. After election, no mea culpa on picking Trump. Attacked Trump as if she was always against him. There is a whole slew of reporters and opinion writers that fall into this category.
Down lambasted Hillary Clinton for twenty years and the day after Trump won, she wrote a column that said "How could people be so stupid, voting for Trump?" Dowd is the most self-unaware person on the planet.
Dowd hasn’t been relevant or important for decades. She gets, however, to one of my pet rants: the more important the story, the likelier the Times’ reporting is rap. Or worse.
And the Kim affair, specially her response to Eric, elides the real problem with showing the tweet to Murkowski: Tanden’s nasty tweets are a problem in a way Trump’s never were. Every reporter covering Tanden and her tweets should ask every senator who are against her confirmation why they’re a problem when Trump’s tweets never were a problem — even the tweets with which he promoted his literally murderous response to the pandemic. For that matter, another question is how many of her tweets were nasty and how many were characterized as nasty because they referenced facts which only rarely supports the GOP and hence might appear nasty.
Maureen Dowd is a person with an opinion. I'm getting more than a little tired of mere opinionists being treated like their every utterance is gold.
I’ve long been convinced that the fabulists, er, columnists for the NYT write for their friends and neighbors on the Upper West Side and that they sometime venture to the Upper East Side when they must. The NYTimes is essentially Patch for one neighborhood, with society pages.
I don't care what Seung Min Kim says, what she did was something they do over at Project Veritas or Sasha Baron Cohen.
Her goal was to move the needle on which way Lisa Murkowski would vote and then proudly claim she was the first to do in Neera Tanden.
Clearly, Lisa was unaware of the tweet so I call into question Miss Kim's characterization that it had already been reported on. If it did, then Lisa needs to hire some new aids.