Magary: 'Maggie Haberman and the New York Times will never get over themselves'

[bigtree]

Drew Magary @drewmagary
The Times profiled their own Trump access merchant, so I fisked it. @SFGate
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Drew-Magary-Maggie-Haberman-New-York-Times-15716010.php

Link to tweet

The Trump Presidency Is Ending. So Is Maggie Haberman’s Wild Ride.

____That’s the headline, the second part of which is inaccurate. In the profile itself, author Ben Smith notes that Haberman will remain on the Trump beat even after Joe Biden takes the oath of office. This supposed wild ride — four years of absolute f--king horror that proved tragic for millions of Americans and resulted in Haberman being subjected to unrelenting abuse herself — will go on. There is nothing all that heartening about this. But the Times is telling their own underdog story here, so Smith lionizes Haberman’s dogged reporting, her robust page view tallies, and the quality scoopage that she was able to mine from her exhaustive efforts. He does NOT note that Haberman is a product of nepotism (her old man is a former Times columnist), or that she has an extremely transparent habit of framing her likely sources in the most favorable possible light, with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump being the most obvious benefactors of her horse trades. He also doesn’t note that one of the Times’ other White House insiders, Glenn Thrush, was demoted after horrifying accusations of sexual harassment and then quietly worked back into the fold, sharing a byline WITH Haberman today, no less.

No, this column is strictly PR for the sake of a reporter who spent four years with primo access to genuinely evil people and, instead of torching them the way she should have, milked them for palace intrigue that often proved either predictable or anodyne. Oh no, it says here that Trump feels “unshackled”! He might escape from the zoo! And, in true Times fashion, Smith pretends that Haberman has insights into Trump’s psyche you simply wouldn’t have been able to deduce from watching the man speak for longer than five seconds:

She has consistently painted a portrait of a man who is both smarter and less competent than his enemies believe, a portrait vindicated again this past week as the president impotently poisoned politics with lies about election results.

Trump is EXACTLY as stupid as I believe, if not more so. He’s a mindless f--king ape who doesn’t like doing anything. That is a fact. The fact that I despise Trump doesn’t make that fact any less objective. I certainly don’t need that fact politely, and wrongly, rejected by Smith or Haberman. If you spent four years perpetuating the idea that Trump is secretly a master strategist instead of the singular worst example of a system designed to prop up scum of his ilk, you have failed. The Times failed during Trump’s presidency, treating him as a proper head of state and lending their coverage of him a sober, Timesman tone, which he NEVER deserved. The paper still doesn’t grasp that self-evident facts about powerful people can be expressed in the reporting. Those facts don’t need to be subtly inferred. They don’t have to be relegated to the Times’ opinion bin, which remains a complete pile of s--t. Even now, while Trump and the GOP endeavor to openly steal the election, the Times acts as if treating the president and his party like the pigs that they are would be some massive breach of celestial etiquette. Rather than do that, they gotta regale you with tales of Haberman’s yuppified commitment to shoe leather reporting:

She texts while she drives…

read more: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Drew-Magary-Maggie-Haberman-New-York-Times-15716010.php

[GusBob]

1. It was the best of Times, it was the worst of Times

It seems as if the NYT is damned if they do or damned if they don’t

It also seems as if they go out of their way to placate one side one day and piss them off the next

Their idea of fair and balanced I reckon

They can be criticized for their fawning coverage of Trump as in the OP but they were celebrated like kings with the tax return coverage

It always seems to be a case of what have you done for me lately?

Trump trampled all 5 rights guaranteed in the first amendment but his attacks on freedom of the press gave him much traction

[bigtree]

3. Maggie Haberman

...Judith Miller.

Someone sending the NYT Trump's taxes, and their editors being oh-so- brave in publishing them, doesn't come close to balancing out this access-reporter mouthpiece for the Trump administration spreading his lies like they're from anonymous sources.

[brush]

2. The "Times" seems to always generate embedded a-hole reporters...

like this (see Judith Miller), who generate a huge byline count from their obsequious currying of the favor of disreputable characters.

[greenjar_01]

4. Maggie haberman is literally the worst fucking journalist in America

And that's a high bar.

[underpants]

5. I just read 5 or 6 pieces by Drew Magary. He's great.

Thanks. I just found a new favorite.

Maggie sucks. I did a dry boring impression of her and my wife were calling me awful.

I saw she was on CNN and said “Oh look Ms. electricity and screen presence”. They asked who she was “Maaaaaggie.....Haberman....I write for....the.....New.....York.....I’m almost finished.....Times”.

“That’s terrible!!!” they said.

Anderson Cooper asked her a question and she got one line out and they were cracking up.

[bigtree]

6. I had the same impression of Drew

...he is a great read.

Here's another good one on Maggie:

The New York Times' Maggie Haberman Is REALLY Really Bad At Her Job
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/05/new-york-times-maggie-haberman-really

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet