Pre-match: Can't believe it took this long for this thread, the 2024 Presidential election thread!

Blue Maga? I am sorry can you clarify your point? I think you are implying my comment was inappropriate but I am confused as to the line crossed.

 

Hold on…. Let’s not rewrite history here. We can’t so quickly forget that Maggy had spent the past few years trading access to the Trump WH in exchange for “normalizing “ this psychopath.
Now that she wrote an article mildly critical of Trump she suddenly becomes a model of journalistic integrity. Give me a break. We have receipts and memory.

This is Maggy in her own words:
Haberman not only feasted on the Trump White House leaks, she benefited from direct access to him, thanks in part to the time she spent at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which often served as a p.r. arm for Trump during his New York City days. "Longevity, just being around him a long time, is something he values," Haberman once explained of her relationship with Trump.


She is shameless. She should at least send him some of the money she got for writing her books on the Trump presidency.

 

Not surprising for July, coming right after Biden’s debate catastrophe. The August numbers should be much better for the Dems.

 

Also from the Guardian - Marina Hyde

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ald-trump-elon-musk-x-twitter-politician-tech

 

Trump actually thinks people viewing the train wreck is helping him.

 

This is good too from the Guardian:

The men’s joint appearance in an audio conversation on X on Monday night was, as expected, a display of two planet-sized egos, toxic masculinity and breathtaking mendacity. More surprisingly it was also dull, like sitting with two drunks at a bar trying to set the world to rights over more than two hours.

The main message: if Trump doesn’t win the election, and if Musk doesn’t become the emperor of the universe, you’re not going to have a country any more.

 

Are you for real?

 

Keith Richards has entered the chat.

 

It's not conspiratorial at all.

She did a ton of legwork to legitimize Trump and call excessive attention to Hillary's comparatively minor scandals (but her emails!) and used terminology towards Hillary that she wouldn't towards Trump.

Whether she was later critical of Trump isn't all that relevant - she, and the Times more broadly, are a big reason that Trump ever got elected in the first place.

Bootlicker might be a harsh term, but amoral access merchant isn't.

 

A writer doesn't have any agency in how they frame a story?

Also, I don't exactly buy the argument that she tried to get Trump elected...but if a writer at the Times was trying to get Trump elected, what would they have done differently than Haberman?

 

The editors are the main problem at the f********ing NYT. Maggie is problematic in being an access journalist, but she has said a bunch of stuff critical of Trump.

She may or may not be on board with it, but editorial is requiring them to use stenographer-like watered down terminology to describe Trump, and editors write the headlines. And frankly, if she were to put things in clearly blunt terms without plausible “fairness,” she and the NYT would lose this access.

Maggie is largely why we know so much messed up stuff inside Trumps inner orbit.

 

The press may want Trump "for their job." But, evidently, the fact that he treats them like shit, refers to them as enemies of the state, and would happily see them all imprisoned or lined in front of a firing squad is somehow irrelevant.

 

She gets access because she has been doing his bidding since the days she was at the NY Post, FFS. Dude that is serious revisionist history here. You are not going to whitewash Maggy H here. There is a whole thread on how the media is failing us and among others, Maggy H should be the poster child for our media failure.

"she benefited from direct access to him, thanks in part to the time she spent at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which often served as a p.r. arm for Trump during his New York City days.


Among the revelations in the recently released materials from the January 6th committee was an account of a conversation that took place in May, 2022, between the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and the former White House ethics attorney Stefan Passantino. Hutchinson had just finished her third deposition with the committee. Passantino, her lawyer at the time, was in a taxi with her on the way to a restaurant. According to Hutchinson, Passantino’s phone rang—it was the Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Hutchinson asked her counsel not to take the call. “I don’t want this out there,” she remembers saying. “Don’t worry,” Passantino allegedly reassured her. “Like, Maggie’s friendly to us. We’ll be fine."

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/maggie-haberman-the-confidence-mans-chronicler

 

Media loves Republicans since Reagan took office. That and because they don't want to be on the receiving end of bias criticisms. As I've also said, they don't want to be political reporters, they want to be sports reporters. They want to be entertainment reporters. I get it, the political beat can be monotonous, but it's serious work. And they wouldn't last 5 seconds as sports reporters.