NYT's Haberman Revealed As "Friendly" to Trump Administration in Jan 6th Report

[RandySF]

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has an interesting relationship with Donald Trump which has baffled her colleagues, readers, and critics alike.

While Haberman has written frank pieces portraying Trump as he is, she also has been generously lenient when a reprimand was in order. She's as equally guilty of whitewashing a lot of damning evidence about Trump while holding back information to use to sell her book about Trump, which was released in September.

But while Haberman continues to play coy regarding her status in TrumpWorld, the January 6th House Select Committee's report contains an interesting nugget of truth better than any CNN chyron.

The Committee released Cassidy Hutchinson's transcripts ahead of the full report on Thursday, and amongst the bombshells about the crappy White House counsel is this bit of advice she receives unironically from ethics lawyer Stefan Passantino, who tells her it doesn't matter if Haberman knows she's spoken to the January 6th Committee.

"Like, Maggie's friendly to us. We'll be fine."




https://hillreporter.com/commentary-nyt-s-haberman-revealed-as-friendly-to-trump-administration-in-jan-6th-report

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Who is surprised by this?

Ha Berman is a TFG toady

[rubbersole]

2. Yep.

Ribbit, ribbit...

[dalton99a]

14. +1

[tanyev]

19. Yeah, not really a "bombshell".

[llashram]

44. not me

a snake in the grass opportunist if I have ever seen one.

[Hortensis]

54. At the grossly misleading OP leadline or that the corrupt tRump

attorney assigned to Hutchinson tried to get her to do wrong (and get herself in a world of trouble he's in) by assuring her a WaPo investigative reporter was "friendly?" She of course subsequently fired him.

There's really no substitute for reading for oneself.

[ZZenith]

3. No shit.

As pbmus is fond of saying.

She was clearly pushing the propaganda the whole time. NYT is long since gone from my “trustworthy news source” list.

[RockRaven]

4. Revealed? It was revealed in 2015/2016 when she started covering his primary campaign.

How did she get that assignment and why? Who is her mother? Who have her clients been? This was known years ago! And discussed and complained about ad nauseam.

Yet another data point confirming to an already established phenomenon isn't news and isn't a revelation. "Gravity revealed to exist this morning by my spilling of coffee upon the floor!"

[Blue Owl]

5. Maggie's like the leashed Pricess Leah to Slobba the Glut

https://www.theonion.com/maggie-haberman-climbs-out-from-trump-s-folds-1849601498

[Genki Hikari]

18. Except Leia

Didn't want to be there. She was taken captive after trying to save Han.

Nobody forced Haberman to cover the Slobfather, and certainly not in such a servile manner. She did all of that of her own free will to benefit herself, never mind anyone else, or the country itself.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. She Killed Jabba, Too

Maggie could have metaphorically killed TFG in 2016, but she did nothing

[Retrograde]

6. And water is still wet

so what else is new?

[BigmanPigman]

7. Hearing her speak is like slow death.

She has such a monotone, boring, lackluster delivery. It makes her writing seem exciting in comparison and her writing sucks so that's says a lot right there. BORING and prejudiced...not a good reporter or a guest on a panel either.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. She always had the most ACCESS to Trump. We always knew why.

[tenderfoot]

9. Oh come now. Journalism is fluid - you just don't understand.

[Raster]

10. Wait, #MAGAHaberman is a tRump toadie?!?

Say it isn't so!

#TrumpPresstitute

[DFW]

11. My dad was a true journalist

Although a life-long confirmed Democrat, his professional allegiance was to the truth, not to his party. He got angry calls all the time from Democratic Senators and Congressmen for revealing things they didn’t want published. By the same token, he was praised in the Congressional Record (!!) by a right wing Republican for being tough on him, but never abandoning objectivity.

That’s the difference between being a journalist and a propagandist. The absolute worst are the ones who are propagandists with a specific agenda, and yet claim to be journalists while lying about their agenda.

[ificandream]

29. You are correct, but Haberman is not a propagandist.

Otherwise, she wouldn't have written many of the tough stories she's written on Trump.

[DFW]

33. I haven't seen any of her tough stories on Trump

If she has written some, then she does indeed deserve credit for them, but going easy on him during the 2016 campaign is not something that can be overlooked, either.


I haven't lived in North America for many years, so my main press stories are the ones I see locally here (western Europe). I do get back a few times a year, though.

[ificandream]

34. Here's the latest ... just out today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/us/politics/jan-6-committee-report.html

As for going easy on him in 2016, try searching through the Times archives.

Here's one I can remember. I wouldn't call this going easy on him:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/21/in-exchange-of-fire-donald-trump-has-lindsey-grahams-number/

In Exchange of Fire, Donald Trump Has Lindsey Graham’s Number (July, 2015)

Senator Lindsey Graham will probably have to change his cellphone number.

That’s because Donald J. Trump, the provocative Republican presidential contender, brandished a card showing the South Carolina senator’s phone number from the stage at a speech on Tuesday afternoon, reading the digits aloud and encouraging people to dial.

The reaction on Twitter was explosive. Several journalists wrote that the number was, indeed, Mr. Graham’s. Some people watching the speech on a livestream said they dialed it; one reported hearing a voice mail message identifying the phone number as belonging to Mr. Graham, and another said a man who sounded like Mr. Graham answered and hung up.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

12. Remember Judith Miller?

Something tells me Maggie is going to have a lot of 'splaining to do. Miller is still rewriting herstory.

[brush]

15. Exactly. Haberman was imbedded as deeply as Miller was.

[LittleGirl]

13. Not surprising at all really

CNN has her on repeatedly and she drives me crazy. She says that she “thinks 45 thinks this way” because of course, 45 is giving her daily phone calls. How else would she know? 45 loves to call journalists and feed them with insider info because he’s a gawd damn idiot like that.

What truly convinced me so many months ago was reading about her and her families connection to 45. All those people hang out together secretly but you can’t fool me! I see them for who they are. When Haberman comes on CNN, I change the channel or mute her. I don’t believe her or trust her. She’s a fraud.

[dalton99a]

16. Haberman is a Trump propagandist masquerading as a journalist, a la Judith Miller

DUers have known this for years.

[ificandream]

30. No, she's not.

As someone who worked in journalism for over 30 years, she's an excellent reporter. It's sad that fucking Fox, which wouldn't know news if it bit them in the ass, is the standard for journalism for too many people these days. Fox-type propaganda is not journalism. The truth is. And the truth isn't always what you want to hear or written the way you want to hear it (a la Tucker Carlson). Haberman is an excellent reporter.

[Tommymac]

37. Totally Disagree. She uses her position to spin propaganda for TFG and enable his grift. Always has.

She occasionally will 'back bite' him just to cover herself. She is not dumb.

She has self-ruined her own reputation. And the NYT along with it, IMO.

You can keep trying to redeem her here, good luck with that.

As most of the comments on this OP show, DU'ers aren't dummies either and know what the real deal is.

[dalton99a]

41. +1. A classic - right after the El Paso massacre:

Link to tweet

[ificandream]

42. I really doubt she cares about this right-wing type bashing even by liberals.

She knows what her job is. It's to report facts in an unbiased manner, not interpret them or weave conspiracy theories.

As for DU'ers, I've gotten many responses that they appreciate my comments from someone who worked in journalism. It's funny to see people who think they know what journalism is when they've never been in the business. That's like someone saying that know how to build a house when they've never been in the construction business. They don't call it journalism school for nothing.

[Celerity]

17. she's the Mushroom Whisperer

[GoCubsGo]

20. Roger Stone's goddaughter was a Trump-friendly?

Gosh, whoda thunk that?

File this in the "No shit, Sherlock" file.

[ificandream]

31. Source for this unfounded accusation?

[LiberalFighter]

21. Of course she was. This needs to spread far and wide.

[tenderfoot]

22. Her resident fan club members haven't responded to this.

Hmmm 🤔

At least we can see your slips now.

[dalton99a]

32. They have.

In this thread.

[Tommymac]

38. Oh yes they have, see several posts above.

Their slip is is showing.

[tenderfoot]

47. I'm sure they were impressed with the "but her emails" stenography crap

[gulliver]

23. Um, friendly to Cassidy Hutchinson if I read the "us" correctly.

And I do.

This Haberman bashing is ridiculous. Always mistaken. She walks a fine line, and she walks it masterfully.

[gratuitous]

27. I disagree

Unless you define "fine line" as "safely penned in the corral."

[ificandream]

35. Agreed. It really is ridiculous. And the type of stuff on Fox (they want you to call it) news.

[Tommymac]

39. No, it's more like she stumbles like a drunk taking a roadside sobriety test.

She is a mediocre, at best, hack, whose family connections have made her career.

[Hotler]

25. Bless her heart. She and many others watched and let it burn then wrote books about it.

I hope she has a nice day.

[ificandream]

36. She's a reporter. It's her job to report. Not spread Tucker Carlson-type lies.

[Tommymac]

40. It seems her 'job' is to publi$h a tell-all book years after the fact.

She could have done her journalistic duties and exposed the criminal TFG administration when it really mattered.

Instead, she hoarded those facts like a miser hoards their gold, waiting to cash them in on a lucrative book deal.

[ificandream]

43. Journalism reporting evolves over time. It's not a one-shot deal.

The accusations that she withheld things to sell the book are silly. That would have gotten her fired. Stories evolve. That's why in journalism there are follow-up stories.

And if you notice, you never see a male reporter get hit with the accusations she gets. Wonder why that is?

[FelineOverlord]

45. Bob Woodward

Has received plenty of criticism about withholding information for his book.

People may have DIED because of it.

But certain reporters now only care about their vERy SpeSShul AcCess and 💰🤑

And yes, I have been a reporter in the past.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ificandream]

46. So a Trump advisor is your source? LOL ...

From Wikipedia (admittedly, not the perfect source, but ...): "Stephanie Winston Wolkoff (née Batinkoff) is an American fashion and entertainment executive and former senior advisor to the first lady Melania Trump. Before her controversial[2] role in politics, she produced various notable events in New York City, including the Met Gala, and later worked as the founding fashion director for Lincoln Center and facilitated the expansion of its Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week.[3]"

[FelineOverlord]

52. He was widely condemned.

What he did was completely unacceptable.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1239707

Anyway. . .

But clearly some people believe everything from Maga Haberman.

They actually think she’s a good reporter.

She is not.

Haberman is called “Trump’s stenographer” for a reason.

She’s no better than Fox News.

She will “criticize” Trump briefly and then she goes right back to defending him.

She DESPERATELY wants him back in office so she can be relevant again.

[ificandream]

53. You're really digging down low there, my friend. And to compare her with Fox says a lot. Nice try.

[ificandream]

50. Every detail for every story is not always available when it's first published.

Look at how many things we've found out about Trump since Jan. 6. Any journalist will tell you journalism is an evolving thing. As I've said before, if she withheld facts for her book, she'd get fired by a newspaper like the New York Times. (Certainly the dopes at Fox wouldn't. Since they're not journalism.)

[niyad]

26. NSS

[ificandream]

28. So a pundit's INTERPRETATION of the Jan. 6 report dumps on a reporter's work?

People have to stop using the Fox "idea" of journalism. Which is exactly what's happening with this "story". That whole hillreporter.com story is a piece of garbage.

"While Haberman has written frank pieces portraying Trump as he is, she also has been generously lenient when a reprimand was in order. She's as equally guilty of whitewashing a lot of damning evidence about Trump while holding back information to use to sell her book about Trump, which was released in September."

So where are all the examples of her "leniency"? Guess what. There are none.

How many people in this thread have read her book "Confidence Man"? I've written about it elsewhere on this site. It was a deep examination into Trump's history. No, it's not a Fox slander-and-go work, and it's not a whitewash but a very intelligent look at him.

The OP is typical Fox slander-and-run crap. We have more smarts than the Fox/MAGAT idiots to believe this junk. This is the type of crap they do. We shouldn't sink to their level. And this thing does.

[tenderfoot]

48. Hillary was derailed by great journalism!

[AllyCat]

55. You don't say!

I mean, who would have guessed?

[Botany]

56. Maggie NY Times 2015. "Hillary Clinton's Long Road to 'Sorry' Over Email Use"

NY Times2015

By Maggie Haberman and Amy Chozick

Sept. 11, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton did not want to apologize.

For months, when advisers or friends gently suggested she say she was sorry for using a private email address and server while at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton replied that her actions had been within the law and that political opponents and journalists were manufacturing the controversy. Apologizing, she argued, would only legitimize it.

On Tuesday, she relented. In an interview with ABC News, Mrs. Clinton said using a private email had been “a mistake,” adding: “I’m sorry about that.”

The tortured path to what some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters saw as an overdue and essential step is the story of a presidential campaign in flux, adapting to unanticipated challenges it was not entirely prepared to handle — and of a candidate whose instincts, over a tumultuous lifetime in politics, have repeatedly guided her toward digging in, not giving in, when under attack.

But Mrs. Clinton, sliding in the polls — which show voters increasingly questioning her trustworthiness — does not want to see this shot at the presidency slip away. And the pleas from friends and advisers became more fervent almost a month ago, according to interviews with a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the discussions, most of whom insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-secretary-of-state.html

[dalton99a]

57. +1. All the Anti-Hillary Propaganda That's Fit to Print.