Salon: Still smiting Slick Willie–NYT continues decade of Clinton bashing

[kskiska]

The New York Times continues its decade of Clinton bashing by trashing his memoirs. And it still won't fess up on Whitewater.

Appearing on CNN over the weekend, CBS's Dan Rather, who recently scored an exclusive interview with Bill Clinton, was asked if the former president understood that by publishing his memoirs he was giving his political opponents "a second whack" at him. A better follow-up question today would be, did Clinton think the New York Times would be out front leading the whacks? On Sunday the Times, which for more than a decade has harbored a hostility toward the Clintons unmatched by any other mainstream media outlet, published a scathing critique that included a dubious accusation regarding the paper's favorite faux Clinton scandal, Whitewater.

The rare Page One review, by Michiko Kakutani, the Times' longtime staff book critic, starts out by attacking "My Life" as "sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull." …

(snip)

That resentment took root long before Clinton faced impeachment charges. Early on in his presidency, the Times' editorial page, then overseen by Howell Raines, actually published an unsigned column mocking Clinton's decision to vacation on Martha's Vineyard, complete with condescending references -- "Lake of the Ozarks" and "Li'l Abner" -- to Clinton's modest upbringing. Around that time Clinton invited the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., to the White House for a lunch, where he asked about the paper's critical coverage, pointing out the Times had endorsed Clinton for president. According to the account in "The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times," Sulzberger suggested it was a "tough love" policy. "I've seen the tough," Clinton replied. "Where's the love?"

And that was before Whitewater, the mirage-like non-scandal the Times played a central role in creating. Most of the paper's reporting on Whitewater has long since been called into question. Yet unlike more recent public bouts of accountability at the Times, where editors have spelled out for readers embarrassing journalistic failures -- such as the rampant fabrications of cub reporter Jayson Blair, or the hyping of Iraq's alleged stockpile of WMDs during the run-up to war -- the Times has not only failed to cop to its Whitewater woes, but continues to build a protective wall higher and higher around them.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/22/times/index.html

[whistle]

1. And NYT has a hard-on for Bill Clinton because.....

...???? Why are these people bashing Clinton? His book? I don't think so.....Anyone, please if you have an explanation I would like to know.

[HawkerHurricane]

2. Because...

"He's an new money Arkansas hick with no class who doesn't suck up to the New York Elite who should (or do) really run this country."

[Mountainman]

3. I believe that one day they will have a psychiatric name for Clinton hate

It has to be some type of mental disease. I know that we don't like Bush and I didn't like Nixon or Reagan but I never let my dislike rise to the level of Clinton hatred.

Even after he is out of the White House he is still bashed. And the only thing he was accused of that he was not found innocent of was lying about sex. I'll even bet that the majority of Clinton haters have told lies about their sex lives. The biggest lie of all is that there having sex with another person.