NYT & Russia

[David Morris]

Agree away.  No matter. What will be will be.

On Sunday, January 22, 2017, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Agree 100%, Ish.
>
>
> Laura
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >Sent: Jan 22, 2017 1:11 PM
> >To: Pynchon-l <Pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >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
> <javascript:;>> 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/20170123/f249ed88/attachment.html>