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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

John Kerry

In reply to the discussion: New York Times article today [View all]

karynnj

(59,944 posts)
2. That is infuriating, but typical NYT
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
Dec 2012

They were in love with HRC since 1992 and built her up as Senator (where she really was not all that remarkable), Presidential candidate, and SOS. They even rewrote history when real history was less good - notably that she immediately picked herself up after losing to Obama. This ignores that she denied reality for at least a month and then stayed away from the Senate for 1 to 2 months after conceding when the Senate was still in session. (Conversely, they have written that Kerry did little for years after losing - forgetting Kerry/Feingold - which HRC opposed for political reasons.

With Kerry, there are so many examples where they presented things in the worst possible way - most glaringly to me in two instances.

- In 2004, when their public editor defended Jori Wilgoren, who had called Kerry a "social loner". Their defense included that she spoke to at least 20 of his life long friends! (because all social loners have over 20 life long friends, who are intensely loyal to them.)

- In 2005, when their first article on the Alito filibuster, spoke of Kerry cavorting on the slopes in Switzerland. This after the NYT editorialized for "someone" to filibuster - but I guess they did not mean Kerry and Kennedy. Even years later, when Schumer spoke of his regret at not leading a filibuster, they did not mention he and HRC actually were angered by the Senators K doing so.

As to not giving credit, I complained to a writer for his article on the Housing bill that Kerry introduced in three Congresses getting progressively more support that was accepted into the Banking committee bill, which highlighted Reed, and mentioned something like 5 Senators, ignoring Kerry, I was told that he was a "treasure", but the article was more on Reed than the bill. Apparently, the fact that he was lead sponsor did not count - even though they, like most of the media, wrote in 2004 that he had little legislation as used a criteria never used for anyone else that it only counted if he was the lead sponsor AND it passed as a stand alone bill under his name.

New York Times article today [View all] beachmom Dec 2012 OP
Pure silliness. ProSense Dec 2012 #1
Exactly! DoBotherMe Dec 2012 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author politicasista Dec 2012 #5
Explain what? Mass Dec 2012 #6
delete. not important n/t politicasista Dec 2012 #7
Explain what? karynnj Dec 2012 #8
Your observation makes a lot of sense Blaukraut Dec 2012 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author politicasista Jan 2013 #14
link deleted n/t politicasista Dec 2012 #10
That is infuriating, but typical NYT karynnj Dec 2012 #2
I have given up on the media in general Mass Dec 2012 #3
I thought this article was drivel MBS Dec 2012 #11
Great!! Wonderful insight karynnj Dec 2012 #13
No surprises here. wisteria Dec 2012 #12
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»John Kerry»New York Times article to...»Reply #2