NYT & Russia

[kelber at mindspring.com]

Agree 100%, Ish.


Laura


-----Original Message-----
>From: ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 22, 2017 1:11 PM
>To: Pynchon-l <Pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: NYT & Russia
>
>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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l