Haberman Twitter

Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade.

Maggie Haberman Twitter Account
Haberman Twitter
Twitter.com Maggie Haberman
Luke Haberman Twitter

If you’d prefer to listen to today’s newsletter, click play.

Late Monday, New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman noted on Twitter that Trump shouted out Gaetz during a rally in New Hampshire. After the Washington Post issued a statement defending Kim and denouncing the attacks, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman took to the Twitter machine to rant about how “supporters of an extremely online Cabinet appointee who often attacked reporters – not just senators – feel a certain freedom here to just let it fly”.

Note to loyal readers: Please consider subscribing for $6 a month. Thanks for keeping PRESS RUN ad-free!

Stay healthy.

Be kind.

Nobody in journalism rode the Trump wave quite like New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who was toasted by the media for her dogged sleuthing.

'She’s the queen of political journalism,' Vanity Fair proclaimed. She 'may be the greatest political reporter working today,' Elle announced in a 5,000-word profile. And the Times itself worked hard branding Haberman, hyping her Trump coverage as 'one of the most astonishing runs in the history of American journalism.'

But the constant scoops that marked her Trump era work have dried up with his exit from the White House, a development that would confirm just how important access played to Haberman's success during the GOP years. If she were the greatest reporter of her generation — if she was 'regarded as the best-sourced reporter in Washington' — wouldn't she be posting a conveyor belt of exclusives during the Biden era? Or did every one of Haberman's sources leave town with Trump?

With his White House term over, the Times announced its Trump point person, Haberman, would continue to cover D.C. politics, and also report on the former president. Two glaring problems have emerged. First, she's stuck covering a politician who's virtually vanished from the national scene. Trump's post-presidency has been a New Coke-like flop, as he flounders down at Mar-a-Lago, locked off Twitter, and releasing gibberish statements that carry no weight.

That means Haberman has been posting the kind of Trump dispatches that rarely threaten to run on page one:

• “Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club Partially Closed After Positive Coronavirus Tests”

• “Trump Endorses a Loyalist, Jody Hice, for Georgia Secretary of State”

• “Ivanka Trump Will Not Run Against Marco Rubio For One of Florida’s Senate Seats”

Second: the new Democratic administration has turned off the leaks, leaving Haberman and other political reporters scrambling for any behind-the-scenes reporting.

'Reporters drank lustily from the fire hose of leaks that emanated from the West Wing during the past four years. President Donald Trump’s inexperience and chaotic management style begot “West Side Story”-level infighting among subordinates, which translated into the drip-drip-drip of insider accounts, sometimes on a near-daily basis,' the Washington Post's Paul Farhi noted this week.

It was the leaks and the Trump White House's circus-like environment that fueled book deals for so many Beltway journalists. Odds are there won't be many six-figure publishing contracts signed during the Biden years. (Haberman is writing a Trump book, which won't be published until 2022.)

Haberman not only feasted on the Trump White House leaks, she benefited from direct access to him, thanks in part to the time she spent at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which often served as a p.r. arm for Trump during his New York City days. 'Longevity, just being around him a long time, is something he values,' Haberman once explained of her relationship with Trump. Introducing her at 92nd Street Y event in New York City, former ABC News journalist Jeff Greenfield said he couldn't remember a reporter who had established a relationship with a U.S. president the way Haberman had with Trump.

I have no doubt Trump himself served as a source/leaker for Haberman during his four years in office. Yes, he often publicly railed against her and the 'liberal' New York Times, but that was likely part of the kabuki dance that went on as Trump and the Times often used each other to their benefit. Trump certainly provided the paper with crucial access. “He wouldn’t talk to me as much as he does if I wasn’t at the Times,” Haberman once said on a podcast. “That’s just the reality. He craves the paper’s approval.' According to Haberman, as president he would at times call her and thank her for her coverage, at one point giving one of her Trump stories an '8.'

In return, Haberman and Times often normalized him in ways large and small. The daily spent years painting a false portrait of adult decision making at the White House, suggesting Trump was surrounded by a beehive of aides who plotted policy, instead of a madman setting the agenda.

Example: In March 2020, when Trump changed his mind about America 're-opening' by Easter, Haberman reported the 'decisive' U-turn came after he pored over sobering data points about the pandemic. That just happened to be the exact narrative (anonymous) Trump aides wanted the Times to report. In subsequent weeks and months, it became clear that Trump didn't care about data points, or science, or saving lives, which made Haberman's reporting look naïve.

Of course, the daily for years also refused to accurately call Trump a liar in its news stories. Instead, he pushed innocuous 'falsehoods.' (Haberman though, has no problem calling Democrats liars.) Do you think Haberman would have received privileged access to Trump if each day her employer were publishing 'Trump Lies' headlines, or if she regularly interviewed mental health experts about the ramifications of having a pathological liar in the Oval Office?

Normalizing seemed to be the goal. When Haberman sat down with Trump in early 2019 for an extended Q&A, he lied nonstop and came across as utterly incoherent, yet the Times politely typed it all up as a normal White House interview.

In 2019, Haberman famously reported that Trump's former communications director (and likely longtime Times source) Hope Hicks faced an 'existential choice ' about whether or not to cooperate with a congressional subpoena, as if that's somehow the norm. 'When a respected paper such as @nytimes calls this an ‘existential’ question, rather than a question about complying with the law, we have a very serious problem with our democracy,' Princeton University historian, Julian Zelizer stressed at the time. 'This is what it looks like to become dysfunctional.'

One year ago, Haberman's byline appeared on a deeply misguided front-page Times piece as America suffered from the government's futile pandemic response: 'Despite Pushback, Trump Suggests Testing Is No Longer an Issue.' As if his blatant lies ever should have ever been taken at face value, let alone during a deadly public health crisis.

Nonetheless, Haberman won industry accolades for her Trump reporting. Now with him off the stage the future seems uncertain. That’s what happens with access journalism.

(Photo Robert Daemmich/Getty Images)

💻 GOOD STUFF:

From Los Angeles Times’ “Politicians Dread the Sting of #KHive, The Fervent Online Fans of Kamala Harris”:

Members of KHive, a riff on Beyoncé’s loyal fanbase known as the Beyhive, sometimes use the hashtag #KHive in their social media posts, and many mark their allegiance in their Twitter profiles with yellow hearts and bee emojis.

They share videos of Harris stepping off Air Force Two, make offline friendships, and wear socks and hoodies bearing her name and likeness. They organize virtual “cooking Sunday” parties and offer support to other hive members.

But it’s not all sweetness. Almost any politician, activist or reporter who has questioned Harris has felt the group’s sting.

🎙 FUN STUFF — BECAUSE WE ALL NEED A BREAK

Lake Street Dive, “Hypotheticals”

Another great Boston Band. Powered by lead singer Rachael Price’s rich, magnetic voice and the group’s love of R&B grooves, Lake Street Dive’s latest keys into the early days of a budding romance.

The song really starts to hop at the :45 mark.

I've been playing out a lot of hypotheticals in my mind
I've been writing your name down next to mine
Been imagining all the things you and I could do
I've seen all the possibilities in my dreams
You're alone when you should be livin' next to me
Baby, let's not wait and see

🎙 Click here to listen to the music that’s been featured on PRESS RUN, via a Spotify playlist.

Click hereto listen via Apple Music.

Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro tweeted a list of people in his district who donated the maximum allowable contribution to President Putinpoodle's 2020 campaign. This is information that is already public. Anyone with a Google machine or a library can get this information. Rep. Castro simply tweeted the information so that people would be able to have it. You know, just in case they wanted to use it in their money-spending decisions.

Constituent services taken to a whole new level, apparently => https://t.co/vGDGDl0l2i

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) August 6, 2019

Cue the all-access Princess of the Fourth Estate, Maggie Haberman going weak at the knees, a tear-drop forming in the corner of her eye, her lip quivering in a determined and protective grimace, her tiny, delicate, smooth-skinned hand forming a fist at her curvaceous, yet fat-free hip.. (Sorry. Channeling Maureen But-My-Dad-Was-A-Police-Officer Dowd for a sec.)

Don't want to RT this because I don't want to put these people's names in my feed but this is dangerous, by any campaign.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 6, 2019

Okay, maybe my description of her is over the top. But maybe so is her calling this 'dangerous.' In fact, maybe she's even being a f*cking hypocrite.

Maybe? No, definitely. Here comes Joy Reid to set the record straight.

What am I missing? This is public information via the FEC. Also, the NYT has done these stories disclosing donors to presidential candidates, like this one: https://t.co/bCbA3kfaCr

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

Are Trump donors entitled to some special secrecy that Clinton donors are not?

Maggie Haberman Twitter Account

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

Oh, now, Maggie is being ATTACKED I TELL YOU and, she must put Joy IN HER PLACE!

Joy, do you honestly believe that’s what anyone here is saying? Truly asking.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

If that’s genuinely what you believe, and not something that might appeal to folks on Twitter, I am more than happy to continue offline where it’s a more productive discussion. You let me know.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

Joy stands her solid ground. Princess Maggathah feigns innocence and ignorance.

I’m trying to figure out why disclosing businesses / business owners who donated to Trump is any different from the Times uncovering who donated to the Clinton Foundation, when the implication of the latter was some sort of impropriety. Alitronika dvs sound cards & media devices driver download.

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019

I guess I missed where in the disclosure list in the NYT it had an aspect aimed at ostracizing? Where did it do that?

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019

In rides Grant Stern on his horse, shoring up Joy's argument and ripping off Fair Maggathah's veil of righteousness:

Here's Exhibit A in the Times' ostracization campaign.
Mainstream credibility for a story aimed at demonizing the Clinton Foundation donors to a charity never accused of a single, credible allegation of wrongdoing.https://t.co/SoIkEiTMhv