American Mirror; It’s undeniable the mainstream media was in the bag for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, despite her recent assertions reporters were against her.
Journalists are now openly admitting they provided favorable coverage for the losing candidate.
New York Times reporter Amy Chozick, who is now cashing in on her coverage of Clinton with a new book, told ABC’s “This Week” today that she “tried to write very sympathetic biographical features” that would inevitably boost Hillary’s prospects.
Chozick lamented that it was difficult to get pro-Hillary stories to break through.
“In fairness, we covered all of her policies and I tried to write very sympathetic biographical features.
“The perfect example is I wrote this sympathetic biographical feature about her moving to Arkansas and this feminist mentor trying to talk her out of it. I spent a year on the story — the campaign didn’t want it. It was a great story for her,” Chozick says. MORE
Favorable biographical features on Hillary? So I guess Chozick is the NYT leading fiction writer, huh?
…and yet Trump still got elected. I guess the mind-control stuff lost some credibility, didn’t it?
Maybe common-sense still exists in some remote part of a non-liberal-infected brain.
When left eats left, the darnedest things come out, none of which comes as a surprise to those of us with eyes, ears, and thinking brains.
Pull up the images of this fiction writer. She’s a binge eater. She mental as hell.
“…her moving to Arkansas and this feminist mentor trying to talk her out of it…”
“feminist mentor”…That’s a new one…Is that synonymous with “lesbian sidepiece”?
An example of sympathetic writing about Hillary would be recounting the one time talking to her when her breath didn’t smell like corps gas.
You can’t polish a turd.
“I spent a year on the story — the campaign didn’t want it.”
The campaign was telling the paper what to publish? Sounds like collusion to me.
Stop calling them “reporters, journalists, etc”. They are advocates, period.
More proof that the media, especially the NY Times, is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the DNC. Yet now the rotten Hillbag has the unmitigated gall to state that press rights and free speech are “under open assault” in the current administration, and compared Trump to an authoritarian regime. “We are living through an all-out war on truth, facts and reason”…
Un-fricken-believable!
Yo Pot!
Kettle here.
YER BLACK TOO!!!
So, what makes someone sacrifice her integrity for the distorted image of a political cult figure? Why would one abandon one’s most basic principles for a deeply flawed, obviously ego-maniacal, criminal psychopath?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. I know that people have sacrificed themselves for these sick fucks for centuries (Kings, Monarchs, Emperors, Dictators, Thugs, Mafia Dons, Crime Bosses, &c.) but what is the motivation? To subsume oneself into the personality disorder of some asshole who, somehow, captures one’s imagination, is really an act of self-abnegation on a huge scale.
This isn’t the same as “I think I’ll vote for so-and-so because she may put some money into my pocket” or, as the socialists say: “because she may allow me to keep more of my money” or “may give me some gov’t money.”
These people have severe character flaws – or a complete lack of character – I don’t know which.
And the people who hire them must be just as fucked up – think about it – would you pay someone who will lie for a few bucks? Who will prostrate herself for a pat on the head? Who would suck HRC’s ass in the hope of finding a Lima bean?
Doesn’t make sense.
izlamo delenda est …
Tim – I think most of these people simply hitched their wagon to what they perceived to be the strong horse without putting serious thought ahead of emotion.
(Wall street banks on that…)
@Bongo April 23, 2018 at 12:04 pm
> When left eats left, the darnedest things come out, none of which comes as a surprise to those of us with eyes, ears, and thinking brains.
Gotta disagree. I watch it going on. I think, “Thing that makes you go ‘Hmmm…?’.” And then I hear the “explanation.” And it’s always something like “She” (who was clearly born a he) “stole my penis! With witchcraft!” And, I have to admit my lack of “outside the box thinking.” Because, no, I never, ever, thought “Gee… I wonder if that might have involved that witchy penis thieving I’ve heard NASA is developing?”
@txfella April 23, 2018 at 1:10 pm
> Stop calling them “reporters, journalists, etc”. They are advocates, period.
I prefer “propagandists.” It sounds more Hahvahd.
‘sympathetic biographical features’ for Hillary
How do you pull that one off? I guess you might start off with: The dried out raspy old cunt hasn’t shit on anyone yet today.
Satan’s hagiographer. But then again, aren’t almost all presstitutes.