Haberman being a Trump apologist has been written about quite a bit in the last couple of years. She herself has admitted to having his ear even though he attacked her earlier this year like he didn't know her at all. These are just a few articles I found rather quickly that sum up why everyone side eyes her when she reports on anything Trump/WH related. She has made it abundantly clear that Hope Hicks and Sarah Sanders are sources of hers. I'd be willing to bet Kellyanne as well since it's an open secret that she is a big WH leaker.
I appreciate you throwing some sources my way:
^^^This is a satire article
This is a blog post more than an article. Did come across a more in-depth reference here:
Reading the article. Doesn't seem very reputable in the way that it sources twitter like some type of celebrity gossip blog but they did appear to do some investigative journalism. It brings up some potential conflicts of interest such as Maggie's mother being a part of a PR firm that worked with Trump, but alternatively, the author does searches on the NYT website for articles that Maggie wrote about Hillary in 2015-2016 compared to articles written by Maggie about Donald Trump.
The author finds the NYT website has multiple articles written by Maggie that include the words 'Clinton' and 'Benghazi' however, since the author can't find articles when searching for the words 'Trump' and 'mafia', the author concludes that this is proof that Maggie was biased. The author doesn't cite anything to the articles, he simply concludes that since there are more Hillary articles than Trump articles, Maggie had a bias. The idea that Maggie should have balanced her coverage of Hillary with her coverage of Trump, (who no-one expected to get out of the primaries, let along become president) is a leap of purposeful ignorance that I can't get behind the author on. Really makes me question the credibility of the author.
Is Trump-Whisperer Maggie Haberman Changing The New York Times?
Now this article, is from a more reputable source and goes into a bit more detail. I think this is the line that summarizes the relationship the best:
As aggressive as Haberman’s Trump coverage can be, it may still come as a letdown to the types of readers who would rather see Trump’s most ardent chronicler skewering him, taking him down—as opposed to presenting tough, but fair, assessments of his words and actions.
Overall, based on the article, because of her past Maggie has the ability to make connections and gain sources for tracking/writing more salacious stories for the NYT. This is what they mean about changing the culture in the NY Times.
She's sold her soul for dollars at this point. In order to maintain her sources in the WH, she's willing to tarnish her credibility as a journalist by normalizing Trump and his bullshyt
Unfortunately I'd imagine there's a CNN TV Show waiting for her at the end of all of this
Can you show me where she has normalized the president? She isn't clearly partisan like The Young Turks or the average talking head on TheRoot or DailyKos but she isn't caping for Trump or running from him either. I haven't seen her pulling a Jimmy Fallon.
Yes, I want to see everyone in the administration go down with the ship as much as the next guy, but until that happens, it is better to have some spies in the administration feeding unbiased news outlets information. The idea that Maggie isn't throwing the whistleblowers out with the bathwater is a sign of discretion, not diabolic intentions imo.
Don't want to take the thread off on a tangent but I am still trying to find an article of Maggie's that is clearly partisan or apologetic for Trump's behaviors.
