Clinton’s Dem criticism, which never actually happened

July 17, 2006

Over the weekend, the [tag]New York Times[/tag]’ [tag]Anne Kornblut[/tag] wrote an item about a speech [tag]Hillary Clinton[/tag] delivered to a Democratic women’s group in Arkansas. There are a couple of key angles to the story, not the least of which was the fact that Kornblut got the entire thing wrong.

Senator Hillary Rodham [tag]Clinton[/tag], returning to her red-state ties, chastised [tag]Democrats[/tag] Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign.

Sounds pretty critical, right? And it would have been if [tag]Kornblut[/tag] was right and Clinton was referring to Democrats — but she wasn’t. Despite that Kornblut was reportedly in the room during Clinton’s speech, and despite the fact that she probably had a copy of said speech before it was even delivered, the NYT reporter managed to turn quotes Clinton directed at Republicans into criticism of her own party. The story even incoherently suggests Dems are to blame for congressional consideration of the anti-gay constitutional amendment.

It was one of those instances of journalistic malpractice that leaves one scratching their head. How could Kornblut get the story this wrong? And what are the consequences of such a transparent error?

Just as importantly, I think it’s worth noting two other key angles to this: Kornblut’s record and how a mistake like affects Clinton.

As mcjoan noted yesterday, Kornblut also had a Clinton article in April which made a series of bizarre mistakes, including going with damaging rumors that couldn’t be substantiated, errors of omission, and a misquote from the senator’s autobiography.

Alas, this is also the same Kornblut who said on Meet the Press in 2004 that Kerry “betrayed his fellow veterans” and that the Swiftboat liars’ attacks were really a “subjective question.”

The NYT has a lot of great political reporters; perhaps the editors could consider a different reporter to cover Democrats in the future? Kornblut seems to have a problem.

But what about the effect stories like this one have on Clinton? It’s interesting that the media, particularly the paper of record, keeps running unfair and untrue reports about Hillary, which in turn prompts spirited defenses from progressive voices, some of whom are usually less-than-fond of the senator.

In May, for example, the NYT’s absurd piece about the Clintons’ marriage generated intense criticism, even from Clinton critics on the left. Yesterday’s Kornblut piece did the same thing.

I don’t want to read too much into this — irresponsible journalism frequently draws criticism, regardless of the victim — but I can’t help but wonder if the media’s anti-Clinton folly might inadvertently help the senator, at least a little. Might some of Clinton’s liberal critics warm up to her if the media keeps unfairly going after her?

Who’s foisting this campaign of misinformation/disinformation? Enquiring minds want to know?

That said, are you inferring that Anne Kornblut is a hack?

  • It’s amazing how some people can so easily ignore reality. I keep thinking it’s an aberration – that a group cannot permanently divorce themselves from reality. I mean it’s one thing to deny a limited set of facts for a time. But reality eventually returns. Right?
    When I see pieces like this, it occurs to me that I should rethink my position. Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m divorced from the reality that it is quite easy for some people to live in permanent denial of reality.

  • Reading Clinton’s original comments, it’s clear this goes far beyond journalistic malpractice. It’s a deliberate hatchet job. Kornblut takes partial quotes and completely misconstrues what Clinton is saying. Also, when Democratic candidates or elected officials speak to Democratic voters in “red” states, they typically don’t pander by pulling out the culture war nonsense and suggesting Democrats are to blame. There are fewer Democratic voters in “red” states, but that doesn’t mean they their DINOs or not knowledgable about the issues.

    Has the NY Times relaxed it’s hiring standards? Because this is just beyond embarrassing.

  • “I keep thinking it’s an aberration – that a group cannot permanently divorce themselves from reality.” – JoeW

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time.” – Abe Lincoln

    This would hardly be a new observation.

    This ‘get Hillary’ mentality is not surprising, considering that she has a 54% approval rating. Sure her negatives are high, but so are Boy George II’s.

    But what I think are really the invidious articles are the ones that suggest people don’t think she ‘could do the job’. Reporters seem determined to bring this up all the time. And why is she not able to do the job?

    Is Hillary…

    too much of a bitch…

    or…

    too little of a bitch?

    That’s what it comes down too, isn’t it? Any strong opinioned, knowledgable, and decisive women is called, behind her back, a bitch. Every trait that would make Hillary a good President also gets her labeled.

    All the more if she is a Democrat, and thus expected not to defend herself against the slanders and libels of the Rush’s and Ann’s of the world.

    For the record, I think Hillary can do the job, far better than Boy George II, and that America would be a lot safer and better off. But she is still not my first choice of the Democratic Nomination. I think there are better candidates out there.

  • I wonder if there’s any significance to the fact that “Kornblut” is German for “Grain blood”?

    Jossip — “… your guide to celebrity and media gossip and news” (is there a difference?) — reports on Anne Kornblut here

  • Kornblut – doesn’t that translate as “corn blood,” which means “corn squeezings,” which means “moonshine,” which means what the bimbo is probably drinking on the job when she’s supposed to be masquerading as someone who isn’t an illiterate southern Republican stooge? But hey, “moonshine” equals “southern tradition” doesn’t it?

  • In many parts of the world what this woman has done/is doing would be technically classified as a “lie”. If she’s allowed to get away with it by her editors then they are even more incompetently felonious than she is.

    Unless they’re just getting paid off upfront to overlook it, which would be completely different and entirely understandable. Right?

  • “Reputation, reputation, reputation. I have lost my reputation. I have lost the immortal part of my soul and what remains is bestial. ” — W. Shakespeare

    The New York Times can no longer be looked upon as the newspaper of record. Their journalistisc standards have fallen so far that, good news or bad, their stories must now be taken with a large grain of salt and viewed with increasing skepticism. Thank god for the blogs on the left who do the fact-checking the Times no longer does. Is Kornblut another member of the media on the White House payroll?

  • Maybe some reporters have so internalized the GOP narrative that they can no longer perceive the facts as they are; rather they rearrange what they see and hear to fit a preconceived scheme.

    Or else it was a deliberate fabrication on the reporter’s part (unlikely).

    Either way, the reporter deserves to be fired.

    • Comments are closed.