Hillary aides tried to bully New York Times over her coverage

Hillary Clinton wants to set the terms on which the media cover her. As first lady, she got away with that, and as a weird feminist icon who owed her position to her husband, as senator and secretary of state, she enjoyed protected status. Consider how the media played her up as an effective secretary of state and how public polling revealed that the impression was getting through to the public that she had accomplished something by all her flying around.

So naturally, she believes that she is entitled to a free pass from the mainstream media, who have been her allies all along.  She is playing games with her presidential campaign, claiming she is undecided about running as she systematically assembles the pieces necessary to run. As a “private citizen,” (albeit one who regularly appears in public for six figure speaking fees and is about to launch a new autobiographical book) her personal/political life ought to be off limits, she disingenuously claims.

That is the thinking behind an extraordinary meeting that is reported to have taken place between Hillary’s minions and the Neww York Tuimes. Alana Goodman reports at the Washington Free Beacon (hat tip: Hot Air):

Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, theWashington Free Beacon has learned.

Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.

During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions. (snip)

Chozick’s recent reporting includes a story last month that suggested a family feud was brewing between the Clintons and Marjorie Margolies, Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law.

Margolies lost her Democratic primary bid for U.S. Congress in late May, and the Times reported that Hillary Clinton’s conspicuous absence from the campaign had rankled some Margolies allies.

In April, the Times also reported on Clinton’s difficulty defining her accomplishments at the State Department.

Translation: Hillary expects the same kind of softball reporting and derriere-covering from the media that Barack Obama enjoyed in his two campaigns, and that she previously experienced.  But in the wake of Obama crashing into his own monumental incompetence and problems with the truth, are like-minded media such as the NYT going to be willing to once again sacrifice their credibility? I think it is an open question.

Now that news has leaked out of the bullying attempt, is the Times going to back down? If it does, there will be consequences for a paper that is facing a lot of embarrassment over the firing of its former executive editor Jill Abrahamson.

Maybe the Times will go all-in with Hillary the way it did for Obama. But I have my doubts. There are still some actual journalists who work there, and they will be watching. That is the constituency that new executive editor Dean Baquet has to worry about. If they start bailing out on him, his own future will be in doubt. And we know that he really, really wanted the job that he finally has, because he helped grease the skids under Jill’s involuntary departure.

Hillary Clinton wants to set the terms on which the media cover her. As first lady, she got away with that, and as a weird feminist icon who owed her position to her husband, as senator and secretary of state, she enjoyed protected status. Consider how the media played her up as an effective secretary of state and how public polling revealed that the impression was getting through to the public that she had accomplished something by all her flying around.

So naturally, she believes that she is entitled to a free pass from the mainstream media, who have been her allies all along.  She is playing games with her presidential campaign, claiming she is undecided about running as she systematically assembles the pieces necessary to run. As a “private citizen,” (albeit one who regularly appears in public for six figure speaking fees and is about to launch a new autobiographical book) her personal/political life ought to be off limits, she disingenuously claims.

That is the thinking behind an extraordinary meeting that is reported to have taken place between Hillary’s minions and the Neww York Tuimes. Alana Goodman reports at the Washington Free Beacon (hat tip: Hot Air):

Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, theWashington Free Beacon has learned.

Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.

During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions. (snip)

Chozick’s recent reporting includes a story last month that suggested a family feud was brewing between the Clintons and Marjorie Margolies, Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law.

Margolies lost her Democratic primary bid for U.S. Congress in late May, and the Times reported that Hillary Clinton’s conspicuous absence from the campaign had rankled some Margolies allies.

In April, the Times also reported on Clinton’s difficulty defining her accomplishments at the State Department.

Translation: Hillary expects the same kind of softball reporting and derriere-covering from the media that Barack Obama enjoyed in his two campaigns, and that she previously experienced.  But in the wake of Obama crashing into his own monumental incompetence and problems with the truth, are like-minded media such as the NYT going to be willing to once again sacrifice their credibility? I think it is an open question.

Now that news has leaked out of the bullying attempt, is the Times going to back down? If it does, there will be consequences for a paper that is facing a lot of embarrassment over the firing of its former executive editor Jill Abrahamson.

Maybe the Times will go all-in with Hillary the way it did for Obama. But I have my doubts. There are still some actual journalists who work there, and they will be watching. That is the constituency that new executive editor Dean Baquet has to worry about. If they start bailing out on him, his own future will be in doubt. And we know that he really, really wanted the job that he finally has, because he helped grease the skids under Jill’s involuntary departure.