From the article by Brian Keeler:Gillibrand Hit Piece by the Times: A Classic Study -
It's more like a classic example of a hit piece than a classic study of one. I will try to combine the two.
You see, Brian's focus is a bit narrow. He neglects so much in his unbiased review.
First off let's just start with the other three titles of blogs/articles he's written for Huff Po - "I Ran for Office with Kirsten Gillibrand" and "Carolyn Maloney: Progressive?" and Maloney's "Speak-Before-You-Think" Problem?
Brian's skewed view of the NYT Gillibrand article:
As for their motives, one could conjecture that a bad case of sour grapes was the driving force behind it's front page placement. They were, after all, the paper of record for the pro-Caroline Kennedy movement to replace Senator Clinton.
That's one perspective to take. Another is that they're the paper of record for New York. Period. Or another is that they offered Gillibrand( A Senator) an opportunity to contribute to the article and she backed out. Perhaps, it's because of that little ditty and other parts of the article the authors found so disturbing(that Brian chose not to include in his "study")that the NYT thought it was worth reading.
Like, where it discussed attorney's abusing their attorney-client privilege to allow Philip Morris to get away with murder.
Or the part, where they stated Gillibrand could have refused to work for Philip Morris.
Or that contrary to Kirsten's own words, she was a hell of a lot more than just a junior associate doing deposition summaries or document production for $300 per hour.
Keeler concludes with this -
The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate,
That's really short analysis, because if Keeler had looked at the data he used in his article, he'd see that her 100% is based on only two pieces of legislation.
One piece of legislationwas pushed by her former paycheck client Philip Morris so they could bypass state lawsuits and freeze out their competition.(That link's from the NY Times, too, Brian...perhaps they're the ones that are truly anti-Philip Morris)
The second piece she had little choice but to vote for , because it would have meant voting against S-CHIP(health coverage for poor children) if she didn't.
Kirsten was an attorney for 15 years before taking office. ALL 15 years were spent representing Philip Morris or their parent company, Altria. The way in which Philip Morris used their attorneys to cloak their poisonous secrets was called into light by federal judges. Gillibrand and her staff underrepresented her time spent, and depth of working for Philip Morris. These facts raise reasonable questions that Gillibrand backed out of answering.
So Brian, really, come on, pick up some Grey Goose and leave the Grey Lady alone. Just doing their duty. How would you like it if someone "conjectured" that an article written by a political operative, so biased as you, had an ulterior motive or undisclosed interest?
Ok, I think this my last diary that pertains to Kirsten Gillibrand for sometime. I became recently intrigued by her statements and those of her ardent supporters and potential beneficiaries (Keeler) regarding the subject. I received an incredibly spirited response to my previous diaries and look forward to further dialog. I know this article is not from this news cycle, but once I read it, I couldn't help but be offended by the lack of depth and the strength of vitriol. I also don't believe one should be confined to a news cycle. Brian Keeler certainly wasn't in his most recent article.
What I'd really like with the NY Senate race is to be able to point to a stable and progressive track record of voting and biographical disclosure that makes me embarrassed I ever questioned Gillibrand's credibility. I don't believe that's currently possible. Brian certainly doesn't help her case.
What's quite telling about Brian, is that in his latest Maloney slamfest he cherry picks from the very same New York Times. Twice.
(and an unqualified cite from the ever credible Washington Times)
UPDATE What's disappointing about Brian, is that as a NY political insider, he should know that it's looking more and more like Maloney will back out. Writing shallow, biased articles like he does about a long-time fighter like Maloney is just poor form and indicative of base motives.