NYT & Russia

[Keith Davis]

Also agree...

Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On Jan 22, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> in my imagination that comes very close to what TRP might think.
> 
> (And that nisei with his Twinkle, twinkle kiru  is but another NYT reader, an asshole with a glib tongue, if you aks me ...)
> 
> 2017-01-22 21:08 GMT+01:00 <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/?listpynchon-l
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170122/5008a0c3/attachment.html>