The New York Times Political Editor, Carolyn Ryan, wheets (whines by twitter) about an “unrelenting pundit-led effort to delegitimize all negative reporting about Hillary Clinton.” That’s a quote from an article by Glenn Greenwald, who thinks that the Times is totally in the bag for her. What else has Greenwald said about Hillary? Only that she is a:
"soulless, principle-free power-hungry veteran of DC's game of thrones.”
Well, Carolyn, there’s a good neutral source for you to rely on.
Greenwald does acknowledge Trump’s menace, but believes Hillary supporters are successfully blocking criticism of her:
That Donald Trump is an uber-nationalist, bigotry-exploiting demagogue and unstable extremist does not remotely entitle Hillary Clinton to waltz into the Oval Office free of aggressive journalistic scrutiny.
Greenwald doesn’t get that HIllary has hardly been “free of aggressive scrutiny” and the scrutiny has included gossip, innuendo, lies and flirtation with right wing Clinton haters for 25 years.
Charlie Pierce sums it up:
Very few people outside the campaign want a "cessation" of negative coverage of HRC. Many of us simply want the coverage to make some fcking sense. Last night, after the MSNBC forum, for example, it appears that the Times once again barbered its account of an event, just as it appeared to do after Donald Trump's batshit immigration speech in Phoenix.
. . .
But it is to be willfully blind not to see that the NYT coverage of HRC has become increasingly jump-the-gun bizarre.