This NY Times article says a lot about the paper’s intentions




Here are some additional attractive data about The New York Times’ unbelievably unethical and careless habits all through the full phony Trump/Russia fiasco.

As you already know, a summary of explicit counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation talked about there was no collusion between anyone in the Trump advertising and marketing marketing campaign and the Russians. We nonetheless haven’t seen the full report, so Trump haters are nonetheless hoping there’s one factor they will latch onto to avoid wasting numerous face.

But the sloppiness of the Times’ work isn’t in dispute.

The Times and the Washington Post obtained Pulitzer Prizes for his or her safety of the Trump/Russia story. And since Mueller has exonerated Trump and confirmed these accusations false, the two papers must return these prizes with apologies.

Did the Times merely make an reliable mistake in submitting its tales to the Pulitzer committee? Or was it additional sinister?

You decide. Here’s a story from Jun 9, 2017, which was inside the time frame for prize submissions for the 2018 Pulitzers. But this story — for obvious causes — wasn’t one among the objects submitted. And it didn’t appear on the entrance internet web page of the Times, the place many various Trump/Russia tales have been positioned.

It was hidden on internet web page 21.

Under the headline: “Disputing Times Article About Inquiry Into Russia,” the Times wrote: “James B. Comey, the former FBI director, on Thursday disputed an article that appeared in February in The New York Times about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials.”

“Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that ‘in the main, it was not true.’ The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of FBI and congressional investigations,” in step with the Times in that June 9 story.

“Multiple data retailers have since revealed accounts that help the major elements of The Times’s article, along with information about cellphone calls and in-person conferences between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be associated to Russian intelligence.

“Mr. Comey didn’t say precisely what he believed was incorrect about the article…,” the Times talked about in that June 9 story.

Despite being tarred and feathered by Comey, the Times proceeded on its charade to hunt out proof that we now know didn’t exist.

I doubt that the Times will ever make amends to its readers or to Trump.

But I’ve hope for the Washington Post, which moreover obtained a Pulitzer for tales that turned out to be — at the very least — exaggerated.

Martin Baron, the editor of the Washington Post, edited my columns years in the previous after I used to be writing for the Los Angeles Times. He’s a Pulitzer winner on his private and his ethics are previous question.

Someday, he’ll possibly come spherical and ‘fess up to his paper’s errors.




Be the first to comment on "This NY Times article says a lot about the paper’s intentions"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*