NYT & Russia

[David Morris]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/
22/new-york-times-public-editor-says-paper-might-have-
been-too-timid-on-trump-and-russia/?utm_term=.be45a101e8ce


journalists in the past two weeks have come down hard on BuzzFeed
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/12/why-so-many-journalists-are-mad-at-buzzfeed/?utm_term=.760bacad6826>
for,
in their view, publishing too much information about President Trump and
Russia. This week, the New York Times's public editor criticized the
newspaper for, in her judgment, publishing too little.

Liz Spayd wrote
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russia-fbi-liz-spayd-public-editor.html>
on
Friday that "a strong case can be made that the Times was too timid in its
decisions not to publish the material it had" in the weeks before Election
Day. She was referring to "several critical facts" the paper knew — that
"the FBI had a significant and sophisticated investigation underway on
Trump, possibly including FISA warrants" and that "investigators had
identified a mysterious communication channel" between Trump and Russia.

*[Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia
has compromising information on president-elect
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-briefed-trump-and-obama-on-unconfirmed-claims-russia-has-compromising-information-on-president-elect/2017/01/10/9da3969e-d788-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.3e0f3346aeba>]
*

For Hillary Clinton's aides and supporters, Spayd's critique adds fuel to
their contention that the outcome of the election might have been
different, had there been more coverage
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/clintonworlds-fury-at-the-media-over-trump-russia-story-is-a-bit-overblown/?utm_term=.e812f24a8e22>
of
Trump's alleged ties to the Kremlin.

The Times ultimately did publish
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html>
some
of what it knew about the FBI's investigation, one week before the election
— but only after Slate
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html>
 and Mother Jones
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump>
ran
their own stories. According to Spayd, the Times "had the goods" weeks
earlier.

"It's hard not to wonder what impact such information might have had on
voters still evaluating the candidates," Spayd wrote, considering what
could have happened if the Times had published sooner. "Would more sources
have come forward?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170122/b96aeb90/attachment.html>