Previous post
On the heels of crowning Hillary Clinton “The Queen of Everything” last week following her debate “win” against the other four dimwits on stage with her, and her magnificent performance—and I stress the word “performance”—at the House Benghazi Hearing, the New York Times is again doing precisely what it and countless other Leftist rags do with predictable regularity: practicing shameless hypocrisy. Here’s what the “news”paper ran yesterday on GOP presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina:
Carly Fiorina was an exhilarating, blunt, self-punishing boss who could be warm, but who could abruptly turn cold. https://t.co/bWWEH3lSp5
— NYT Business (@nytimesbusiness) October 26, 2015
Hmm. Strange. I wonder if this is what they mean:
Oh, my heavens! She’s blunt and cold! Oh, wait. That’s Hillary.
I don’t know about you, but I’d welcome a large infusion of unabashed accountability, and a similarly heavy dose of cutting, amid the overgrown, lawless mess that is the federal government, regardless of said bureaucracy-slicer’s gender. But then again, what do I know? I’m just a woman who’s “contradictory” now and then. I guess that disqualifies the oft-brusque Mrs. Clinton, too, right, New York Times?
In response, Fox’s Andrea Tantaros, never one to shy away from telling it like it is, is having none of it:
This story is sexist garbage. I'll say it bc @CarlyFiorina won't. The NYT would NEVER write this about a male CEO. https://t.co/xdVY3Y1MRV
— Andrea Tantaros (@AndreaTantaros) October 26, 2015
…and social media commenters tended to agree:
@AndreaTantaros @CarlyFiorina @nytimesbusiness NYT is misogynistic when it comes to women who don't toe the liberal line…
— Harry Gato (@harrygato) October 26, 2015
@AndreaTantaros @CarlyFiorina Nor would they write it about Hillary Clinton.
— cat mechanic (@tentacled_cat) October 26, 2015
Not a chance. It’s beyond obvious that the majority of the mainstream media, like the New York Times, is in the tank for The Only Female Presidential Candidate That Matters, Hillary Clinton, rampant corruption be damned, just as they are, and were, for Barack Obama. Exhibit A:
In this New York Times piece –among many other similar liberal bravura, Senator Hillary Clinton is praised as… http://t.co/VlwvndlFq7
— Hamid Dabashi (@HamidDabashi) October 17, 2015
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/657369618403762176/photo/1
Nope. No bias there. If you believe the New York Times, Hillary was smiling and respectful throughout:
https://vine.co/v/eVibxLLHpQg
Except for the majority of the time when she wasn’t.
Say what you will about Fiorina’s tenure at HP. That’s not the point; the NYT’s blatant hypocrisy is. Just as with Obama, it cheers Hillary, while ignoring her Benghazi lies, downplaying her breeches of national security, and disregarding her personal War on Women, waged alongside her philandering husband. Yet it has no problem calling out a former CEO who—GASP!—functioned as any other CEO might have on behalf of her company. All because she dares to be an accomplished woman of opposing political ideology.
Know this: The New York Times et al, however slight the chance, are absolutely terrified of a potential match-up between Hillary Clinton and debate-slayer Carly Fiorina. And I don’t blame them one bit.
Appalled By The World says: More confirmation of this being a banana republic. Media praises and endorses a criminal. No surprise at all as the OPR has been run by a criminal regime for the last six years-a fraudulent regime that was manufactured by the media .
But you’re right-for rags like the Times the party line is the only thing that matters-don’t follow that party line then your black or female of gay lives don’t matter to them at all as you are the enemy.
Rebecca says: I’m struggling with the vague claim that “The NYT would NEVER write this about a male CEO.” I tested this claim by reading the entire article substituting “he” for “she” and did not find anything particularly jarring. Few CEOs are given hagiographies by the press, regardless of their sex. They are, like the rest of us, complex and imperfect beings, who happen to wield outsized power. For example, while calling Steve Jobs “CEO of the decade,” Fortune also called him “imperious” and said he had an “often unpleasant demeanor.” The NYT called Jeff Bezos “unapologetic about the Darwinian work culture he created… He could have created a culture that valued employees and treated them well. But that would have required him to care about what somebody else thought. Fat chance.”
Warren Buffett is perhaps the sole exception. Everybody seems to adore him unguardedly.
We should not expect female CEOs to be treated with kid gloves. THAT would be sexist. The real issue here is the disparate treatment of Republican and Democratic candidates by the supposedly objective press, and most especially, female candidates from the two parties.
2 Comments