The New York Times had an anti-Hillary Clinton agenda? That’s untrue
Jill Abramson: Claims made in her recent book, the news editors at the paper were never hostile to Clinton. The only proof I have is that I was there.
By Jill Abramson
In her book, Hillary Clinton says the news media has not done enough soul-searching about its role in her loss.
Her argument boils down to this: too much firepower was aimed at her emails, part of a long pattern of unfair scandal mongering over the years. Unfair press coverage fueled the “lock her up” frenzy and created doubts in the minds of some undecided voters.
Conversely, there was way too little scrutiny of Donald Trump and too much reactive coverage of his every tweet and rally. He was clickbait and ratings manna for the news media. The New York Times bears the brunt of her criticisms.
At an excellent event sponsored by the Texas Tribune, a non-profit news organization, I spent three days in Austin recently with many of the most prominent political reporters and editors in the country, examining the performance of the press in the 2016 election.
As the person who directed much of the investigative and political coverage at the Times…
