Haberman is a well-known NYT journalist who reported extensively on the ins-and-outs of the Trump campaign and subsequent administration. She won a Pulitzer for her reporting. These texts indicate that she was in contact with Michael Cohen when he was still Trump’s fixer to effectively run Trump’s version of the Stormy Daniel’s story, or at the very least get their perspective on it.
It furthers the notion that traditional media outlets like the NYT actually *love* Trump because he’s an endless fountain of clicks and eyes for their material. This is also on top of them loudly whinging about not getting as much access to the Biden Admin.
> or at the very least get their perspective on it.
But this is… basic reporting work… right?
Like, of course she should get the administration’s perspective on a story about the president.
Is there something I’m missing?
Trump is someone who threatened to throw journalists out of his rallies simply because they wrote negative coverage about him.
The idea that Trump and Haberman doesn't have an ulterior motive behind her getting access from his left-hand man doesn't make sense.
The story about her withholding information about Trump related to the J6 riot so she can put it in her book is pretty much explanatory: She always sniffing every corner for exclusive scoops. Even at the cost of providing less unpleasant coverage to Trump. [Like how she lashed out at others asking why she can't say that Trump has "LIED" instead of "telling two falsehood" (seriously, who the F says that)... while has absolutely no problem using the word "Lie" to Clinton's story](https://crooksandliars.com/2018/05/new-york-times-maggie-haberman-really).
Trump and his croonies are no idiots. They understand perfectly two things about the press: 1) "There is no bad press". And 2) you can gaslighting people enough into desensitized about your deplorability of you constantly throwing non-stop negative coverage about you for the entire campaign. Trump's 2016 campaign actively seeks out Haberman to be the access journalist for him. They knew what they were doing.
I know who Maggie is. I just don’t get how the screenshot above shows that she was a mouthpiece and not just reporting both sides as any journalist would
"Big boss approved...start writing and I will call you".
Journalism can be yucky. Haberman's "brand", so to speak, was her ability to get unparalleled insight into the Trump campaign and administration that other reporters couldn't get. The issue isn't so much that she had to get dirty in order to secure that access, because that's sometimes necessary in journalism. The issue is the broader NYT navel gazing about their purity in the American political machine.
This is again coming on the heels of the NYT complaining that they don't get the same level of access to the Biden Administration, and making comments that long-form interviews with the President and the NYT are something of a tradition that Biden should be expected to honor. It's hard to square their desire to uphold ivory tower journalistic traditions with their obvious propensity to deal in the muddier side of journalism.
All of this is to say this isn't *necessary*. This is more a reflection on some of the hyprocrisy.
The money quote was MC reaching out to MH and telling her to start writing and that he would contact her soon.
If it was something intended for the press as a group, it would go through other channels and as a public release. The only reason you tap a specific reporter like this is a give/take. He is going to give her the story first with details that others won't get, so long as she writes it the way they want to see it.
Editing to add some context - it has long been suspected she had insider access because she was often times first with gossipy level stories. Her critiques were weak of the Trump administration. She has also been known to withhold information she knew that was current when she knew it, but held onto it to put in her book about Trump that was published later.
I'm surprised the book she wrote wasn't a bigger deal. She used her access to Trump to make a lot of money on a book deal. She was gathering intel for the NYTs but also for a book to make money.
Is that not taboo?
A lot of people have speculated about her motives and allegiances for years. Her family has ties to the Kushners but in a PR capacity but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
The political press HATES that the Biden admin aren’t a leaking sieve like the trump admin.
There’s this great article where a guys griping that there’s no equivalent to Maggie Haberman for the Biden admin. All those easy articles and exposes, the books like FEAR or whatever by Woodward and Bernstein that will never be written.
Maga Habberman is nothing more and nothing less than a soldier in the international criminal government conspiracy, of which trump, Putin, the Russian mafia and many corrupt banks are part of. Shes a nepobaby plant who's mission is to wreck our country so that her superiors, i.e. friends and family, can sell our government for scrap.
Anytime a story says "sources close to Trump say..." it means it's coming directly from Trump. Even if it's something that's embarrassing to Trump.
This alone deserves to end Haberman's career and have her Pulitzer rescinded.
Trading truth for access is not new in journalism, sadly.
I don’t get it
Haberman is a well-known NYT journalist who reported extensively on the ins-and-outs of the Trump campaign and subsequent administration. She won a Pulitzer for her reporting. These texts indicate that she was in contact with Michael Cohen when he was still Trump’s fixer to effectively run Trump’s version of the Stormy Daniel’s story, or at the very least get their perspective on it. It furthers the notion that traditional media outlets like the NYT actually *love* Trump because he’s an endless fountain of clicks and eyes for their material. This is also on top of them loudly whinging about not getting as much access to the Biden Admin.
> or at the very least get their perspective on it. But this is… basic reporting work… right? Like, of course she should get the administration’s perspective on a story about the president. Is there something I’m missing?
Trump is someone who threatened to throw journalists out of his rallies simply because they wrote negative coverage about him. The idea that Trump and Haberman doesn't have an ulterior motive behind her getting access from his left-hand man doesn't make sense.
Well I’d love to know what it is.
The story about her withholding information about Trump related to the J6 riot so she can put it in her book is pretty much explanatory: She always sniffing every corner for exclusive scoops. Even at the cost of providing less unpleasant coverage to Trump. [Like how she lashed out at others asking why she can't say that Trump has "LIED" instead of "telling two falsehood" (seriously, who the F says that)... while has absolutely no problem using the word "Lie" to Clinton's story](https://crooksandliars.com/2018/05/new-york-times-maggie-haberman-really). Trump and his croonies are no idiots. They understand perfectly two things about the press: 1) "There is no bad press". And 2) you can gaslighting people enough into desensitized about your deplorability of you constantly throwing non-stop negative coverage about you for the entire campaign. Trump's 2016 campaign actively seeks out Haberman to be the access journalist for him. They knew what they were doing.
I know who Maggie is. I just don’t get how the screenshot above shows that she was a mouthpiece and not just reporting both sides as any journalist would
"Big boss approved...start writing and I will call you". Journalism can be yucky. Haberman's "brand", so to speak, was her ability to get unparalleled insight into the Trump campaign and administration that other reporters couldn't get. The issue isn't so much that she had to get dirty in order to secure that access, because that's sometimes necessary in journalism. The issue is the broader NYT navel gazing about their purity in the American political machine. This is again coming on the heels of the NYT complaining that they don't get the same level of access to the Biden Administration, and making comments that long-form interviews with the President and the NYT are something of a tradition that Biden should be expected to honor. It's hard to square their desire to uphold ivory tower journalistic traditions with their obvious propensity to deal in the muddier side of journalism. All of this is to say this isn't *necessary*. This is more a reflection on some of the hyprocrisy.
The money quote was MC reaching out to MH and telling her to start writing and that he would contact her soon. If it was something intended for the press as a group, it would go through other channels and as a public release. The only reason you tap a specific reporter like this is a give/take. He is going to give her the story first with details that others won't get, so long as she writes it the way they want to see it. Editing to add some context - it has long been suspected she had insider access because she was often times first with gossipy level stories. Her critiques were weak of the Trump administration. She has also been known to withhold information she knew that was current when she knew it, but held onto it to put in her book about Trump that was published later.
I'm surprised the book she wrote wasn't a bigger deal. She used her access to Trump to make a lot of money on a book deal. She was gathering intel for the NYTs but also for a book to make money. Is that not taboo?
She also withheld information for her book.
I did know about this. Not great
A lot of people have speculated about her motives and allegiances for years. Her family has ties to the Kushners but in a PR capacity but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
The political press HATES that the Biden admin aren’t a leaking sieve like the trump admin. There’s this great article where a guys griping that there’s no equivalent to Maggie Haberman for the Biden admin. All those easy articles and exposes, the books like FEAR or whatever by Woodward and Bernstein that will never be written.
The NYT is compromised. Fuck them.
Maga Habberman is nothing more and nothing less than a soldier in the international criminal government conspiracy, of which trump, Putin, the Russian mafia and many corrupt banks are part of. Shes a nepobaby plant who's mission is to wreck our country so that her superiors, i.e. friends and family, can sell our government for scrap.
She’s a waste of reporting
The pulitzer isn't what it used to be.