Maybe it’s because Josh Marshall has this editor blocked (and she’s never actually spoken to him), but we really enjoyed watching the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman blast him for criticizing her for ACTUALLY REPORTING the news around Hope Hicks.
Seriously, he was upset with her because she didn’t go all partisan hack and instead went with facts.
The nerve.
Oh man, I don't want to be critical. But I can't believe that Haberman is actually going with this claim that Hicks departure is unrelated to yesterday, that she'd been thinking of leaving for some time and there's 'no perfect time.'
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) February 28, 2018
Yes, Josh, you mean to be critical.
Admit it.
Maggie DARED not to fall in line with your narrative so she must be destroyed. Right?
The timing is clearly going to raise questions. But the fact that non-reporters believe their partisan analysis over actual reporting is a facet of the whole fake news problem in the first place https://t.co/fMN7AOrf36
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 28, 2018
Nailed it.
When you’re dealing with a group that is SO partisan that it refuses to see the reality of a situation because it doesn’t quite fit their agenda or narrative, that’s what leads to being called fake news.
So wait, you're accusing @joshtpm of being part of the "fake news problem." Ah Maggie, I get in dumb Twitter fights (though less than I used to). You might need a Twitter buddy. This is just a silly tweet.
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) March 1, 2018
Ah, it’s adorbs how Joan Walsh tried so shame Maggie for defending her coverage.
And by adorbs we mean small, petty and really weak.
Can't quite tell if this is shade or praise for @joshtpm
I suggest we take it as praise.
Reprinting words from pathological liars without providing context ain't journalism.
— Hume in Scum MushuWeasel (@mushuweasel) March 1, 2018
Recommended
We can’t quite tell what this person can’t quite tell.
That happens a lot when we venture into Lefty-Twitter.
I don't get your confusion. It was praise for Josh. A question for Maggie.
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) March 1, 2018
Praise for Josh. No wonder he blocked this editor.
Though it really wasn’t a question for Maggie, it was a dig at her.
Maybe it’s JOAN who needs a Twitter Buddy.
White House reporters are saying that they have strong evidence this is unrelated to yesterday, which is what my reporting says too. You guys don’t believe it.
So you’re saying the new is fake. How is Maggie’s point off here?
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 1, 2018
Uh-oh.
https://twitter.com/bethanyshondark/status/969184382912262145
Agreed! High-fives all around.
Most of the thread on Maggie’s tweet is Leftists screeching at her because ya’ know, she didn’t report what they wanted her to.
She reported the facts.
Like journalists are supposed to.
Related:
‘Get to PRAISIN’, hypocrite!’ Mary Katharine Ham BLISTERS gun-grabber in Due Process snarkfest
Join the conversation as a VIP Member