NYT & Russia

[Mark Thibodeau]

I get a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach whenever I witness a
smart person saying -- or in this case writing -- something as
incredibly fucking STUPID as what ish mailian just wrote.

And then, for it to be followed up by kudos and huzzah's...

Yes, by all means, back in the wake of Reagan, Democrats should have
put... oh, I dunno... Caesar Chavez and Howard Zinn on the ticket
instead of Bill Clinton!

The nihilistic purity of the Far Left, in full fucking effect. And
after a day like yesterday. Goddamn. Maybe we deserve everything we're
gonna get.

https://medium.com/@sammystyle77/the-nihilistic-purity-of-the-far-left-will-kill-us-all-54169b25e3a8#.hh153a2tb

YOPJ
Shaken, not stirred

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l