New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has made a career off exclusives from the White House under President Donald Trump. But she's also drawn criticism for her symbiotic relationship with the Trump administration—accused of putting furthering her career ahead of truth or journalistic integrity.
On Wednesday, Haberman tweeted a New York Post piece about Hunter Biden to her 1.5 million followers.
She captioned her post with an excerpt from the Post piece.
“...both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop's owner says he alerted the feds to their existence." https://t.co/VggHCJKKI9
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2020
Haberman's choice to share the Post article lead to backlash online.
And a new moniker for the NYT correspondent.
What is WRONG with you?
You know they're calling you MAGA Haberman, right? And you deserve it. Shame on you. https://t.co/uh64zYI0Og
— Kimberley Johnson (@AuthorKimberley) October 14, 2020
Fake-scandal-spewing MAGA Haberman should finally just quit @nytimes and go work at the National Enquirer. @maggieNYT #MAGAHaberman pic.twitter.com/I0DaWfOcUI
— Bryan Dawson (@BryanDawsonUSA) October 14, 2020
Never, ever, ever forget that MAGA Haberman works for the Trumps. She is deemed *friendly* by the WH. She writes what they tell her to write.
Her mother has been employed by the Kushners for years.
— Patrice (@wastedtime01) October 14, 2020
Just because MAGA Haberman has a VIP pass to Mar-a-Lago and stays in the Putin Bungalow doesn't mean she's compromised. Right? pic.twitter.com/C8XK9LTl86
— Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine (@BleedingMarine) October 14, 2020
The biggest criticism was the validity of the piece Haberman chose to amplify.
A swift debunking of the latest Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, MAGA Haberman and NY Post "Nothing Burger" about Hunter Biden, using insights from @a_greenberg's January reporting and new tweets by @vermontgmg @ThePlumLineGS and @danielsgoldman: https://t.co/pN3Zx5yxP8
— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) October 14, 2020
I hope MAGA Haberman and Steve Bannon know that I already voted, so this Russian disinformation they're spewing is a waste of time.
— Booooo Jockey 👻 (@AngelaLovesNY) October 14, 2020
Should you amplify the "MAGA Haberman" trend and make an example of media people who still in October 2020 knowingly spread GOP disinfo? Yes, yes you should. https://t.co/85EW3IrTpH
— John Neffinger (@Neffinger) October 14, 2020
How convenient.
Just a day after the Giuliani manufactured lie drops and #MagaHaberman does her access journalism dance.
Im sure Chuck Todd is fluffing pillows even as we speak. https://t.co/SK58XgBFST
— Steve Marmel (@Marmel) October 14, 2020
Followed by "Sunshine Maggie"#MAGAHaberman
68 stories on Hillary's emails.
Zero stories on Trump Mob Money. #ZeroCredibility #CancelNYTimes pic.twitter.com/QkCsnK8obv
— Jzikah (@jzikah) October 14, 2020
In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).
— Jamie Prtichett (@JambiFixer) October 14, 2020
Maggie Haberman should just work for Trump but she's not his look so he would never hire her, so all she does is raise her hand in his face screaming “look at me, look at me"!
MAGA Haberman pic.twitter.com/UDItrrzXnM
— Mayday Mindy🌊 (@maydaymindy9) October 14, 2020
Why are you amplifying this pathetic hit?
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) October 14, 2020
It is coordinated.
How many times have I told you MAGA Haberman is the Maureen Dowd of 2020 pic.twitter.com/EBNp1YQlsn
— ALT-immigration 🛂 (@ALT_uscis) October 14, 2020
Never have I ever seen trump smile so big! Of course it's MAGA Haberman to his corruptive a** rescue. #MAGAHaberman @maggieNYT pic.twitter.com/WBXeSI0jix
— Lizzy🌿 (@LizChow_) October 14, 2020
Shot of Maga Haberman when given the chance to write or retweet some BS from Trump's campaign. pic.twitter.com/Zhmrxq7DkZ
— The Real Banquo's Ghost (@BanquoThe) October 14, 2020
Over an hour after her original amplification of the Post article, Haberman walked it back by pointing out the holes in the story.
Things that are sketchy in NYP story on Hunter Biden - why wasn't this in Ron Johnson report if it's been in possession for awhile? When did Giuliani acquire it? Giuliani has been everywhere on the but this has been kicking around since late last year and unreleased till now?
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2020
Funny how you just throw it out there and then start asking the pertinent questions later after the disinformation has already spread.
— The Goblin Tree 🌿 (@deploycatattack) October 14, 2020
Any credible publication would fire you for circulating propaganda while also seeing the obvious reasons to disbelieve it.
— The Hoarse Whisperer (@TheRealHoarse) October 14, 2020
The story Haberman amplified was debunked repeatedly in the meantime.
Whatever Twitter's policy, this Post story does not detail an act of corruption by @JoeBiden. More disinformation. See:https://t.co/712nUhM0fz https://t.co/8fi9JpQ0hp
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) October 14, 2020
In response to the backlash, Haberman blamed Twitter, but her critics weren't persuaded by her explanations.
Don't blame the website, MAGA Haberman. You are a quisling and that's how it's going to be for the rest of your life, after we defeat the tyrant you tried to prop up. You backed the wrong horse. Should have bet on the American People.
— 🆘Rev Magdalen |This is fascism and I reject it. (@revmagdalen) October 14, 2020
Where in your headline do you question anything? And don't behave as if you don't use this "website" to clickbait like the rest of them.
— Holly Chesser (@HollyChesser) October 14, 2020
There's no additional tweet linked to this one. No one will go back to your feed to hunt for context. This single tweet stands alone.
That *is* what happens on this website, and as you clearly know that's what happens on this website, you should adjust accordingly.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) October 14, 2020
And on this particular tweet, no, I can't see that you're “questioning" the claim that the FBI was involved because at no point in the tweet do you question that.
You simply quote the passage about the FBI's role, without challenging it in the slightest.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) October 14, 2020
when you start by quoting the article without a critical eye, you're laundering it.
— VRthur (@VR_thur) October 14, 2020
As of Wednesday, October 14, the presidential election is 19 days away. During that time, everyone should be vigilant against such propaganda.
Keith Pedersen/Facebook
