In today’s Monday July 27th NY Times, guest op ed columnist Peter Beinart follows up from Sunday’s Frank Bruni column that posited that Trump’s victory arose from his abuse of social media. Beinart analyzed stats about how USA voters perceive female candidates versus male candidates. He found that Biden’s net negatives are nowhere near as bad as Hillary Clinton’s net negatives were. He found that polling in 2015 and 2016 showed that much of the public thought Hillary was less honest than Trump, even though detailed analysis showed that she was much, much more truthful than Trump ever was. Beinart found that going back to 1992, for both Republicans and Democrats, polling showed a generic female candidate ALWAYS had more net negatives than a generic male candidate. He concludes that much of Biden’s lead against Trump is not because of how badly Trump has been but because Biden is a man, not a woman.
What I mind about Beinart’s op ed is much of what I minded about Bruni’s op ed. There’s no acknowledgement at all that much of Hillary’s problems were because of NY Times reporting, analysis, and commentary. NONE.
That William Safire of the Times called her a "congenital liar" in 1996 did NOT cause troubles for her, according to the Times. That the Times published excerpts from "Clinton Cash" on the front page in March 2015 and hardly reported at all that every single supposition and insinuation of Hillary being corrupt was thoroughly refuted did NOT hurt the public's opinion of Hillary. That the Times alleged that Hillary's email methods and procedures when she was SOS harmed our national security did NOT hurt Hillary either, in the opinion of the Times.
It's amazing how innocent the Times is. It's amazing how benevolently the Times has consistently treated the Clinton's, in the opinion of the Times. We can be sure that if Hillary was drowning, someone from the Times would be sure to throw her an anchor.