NYT & Russia

[ish mailian]

Did readers the NYT vote for Trump?
The NYT? The NYT wouldn't have changed any votes that mattered.


The democrats and those who support them still don't get the country
they live in.

Only the foolish people who call themselves liberals and progressives
and at the same time think that Obama and Clinton are liberal and
progressive politicians,and that celebrities, who send their children
to the same schools Trump sends his kids to, who fly first class or in
private jets, but should be the folk heroes and spokespersons of a
movement to take the country back from Trump, only these foolish
people, these people who march with Chuck Schumer, who voted for the
Clintons, the candidates of Wall Street and Walmart, only these
educated consumers of Hollywood and save the world guilt could
fantasies that  if only the NYT had skewered the brash billionaire and
connected the conspiracy dots that put him in bed with Putin, if only
more people had listened to Michael Moore, if only those stupid
rednecks who voted for Trump....

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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 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]
>
> 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 of Trump's alleged ties to the Kremlin.
>
> The Times ultimately did publish some of what it knew about the FBI's
> investigation, one week before the election — but only after Slate and
> Mother Jones 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?"
>
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l