Great article and she's a first-ate journalist breaking stories every single day (while still being a parent). In other words, a literal mirror image of JG, who is a shitty journalist who does nothing but drink all day and jizz on his iPad at night.
Also, the interview was posted almost a week ago. Way to go JG!!
8:17 pm — Tuesday, 25 July 2017
And thanks to wikileaks, we know she's a Democrat operative who teed up friendly stories for Clinton during the campaign.
This bitch is a political hack, not a journalist.
8:37 pm — Tuesday, 25 July 2017
> M.H.: I think he has no clear ideology.
> But, in reality, this is a man who ... has a very specific view of the role that government is supposed to play in people’s lives.
8:42 pm — Tuesday, 25 July 2017
I guess DJT missed that wikileaks memo when he invited her into the oval office for an hour to chat last week? I assume the failing NYT used blackmailed to get an on the record interview?
I don't really care if she slept with Hillary or committed voter fraud or produced CP on HRC's behalf. The fact that the president willingly invited her into his office is telling. Then of course they published the transcript and have the audio.
10:42 pm — Tuesday, 25 July 2017
What was the point of the interview?
A more succinct version:
DR: Do you like Donald Trump?
MH: No, I do not like Donald Trump at all.
Which is fine. But the rest of the interview is just window dressing.
I can already get this here in West LA every time I have dinner with friends.
Is a novel perspective on Trump too much to ask?
11:29 pm — Tuesday, 25 July 2017
@Not Anonymous - to me the point is "DJT is such a narcissist he talks to this lady." Obviously she is no fan, so why does he obsess over her so? Not sure what the WLA equivalent is, but it's a weird tell. If she hates him (so obvious to you, not to him) why keep engaging?
4:33 am — Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Gruber F. Johnson:
>a terrific interview
Why is this "terrific?"
>Much of what we know of the inner workings of the Trump White House, we know from Haberman.
Unless this Haberman person works in the White House, how can she possibly regale anyone as to its "inner workings?"
6:19 am — Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Gruber the Booger:
I'd like a little 'inner working' of Ivanka.
That is one hot piece of ass right there.
8:04 am — Wednesday, 26 July 2017
> Unless this Haberman person works in the White House, how can she possibly regale anyone as to its "inner workings?"
Sources tell Haberman; Haberman tells us.
12:21 pm — Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Gruber F. Johnson:
>Sources tell Haberman; Haberman tells us.
And we are supposed to take her word for what she claims "sources" have told her... why, exactly?
7:37 pm — Wednesday, 26 July 2017
> And we are supposed to take her
> word for what she claims "sources"
> have told her... why, exactly?
The sources are on the record. If not for attribution, they may not be named in the piece, but editors know who exactly is speaking. If you keep up on the sources and attributions, you can often figure out who they are (hint: Trump himself is often one of them). And the fact that you don't have large scale pushback on most stories indicates that they're pretty close to the mark.
If you were to say this sort of understanding should be made more clear, I would agree. I think reporters and editors at the national level assume everyone has the same media-consumption context as D.C. insiders.
1:20 am — Friday, 28 July 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
LOL! We have no idea who here sources are. He sources could be complete bullshit. And they most likely are!
The media are a bunch of liberal shills. Stop trusting them.
10:51 am — Monday, 7 August 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment,
install the Safari extension!