Connect with us

U.S. News

Prestigious Liberal Watchdog Condemns New York Times’ Russiagate Coverage

Published

2 months ago

on

Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) has issued a scathing indictment of the New York Times for yellow journalism during the Trump-Russia saga.

In short, the hyper-partisan ‘paper of record’ was operating in bad faith.

It’s wasn’t just the Times either. CJR’s findings accurately reflect what most objective thinkers have known this whole time – they were all operating in bad faith.

That said, CJR aimed the majority of criticism towards the NYT.

“No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers,” wrote CJR executive editor Kype Pope in an editor’s note.

The findings were published in a lengthy, four-part series. The first section begins with a story about then-New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet’s reaction when he found out Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t plan to pursue Trump’s ousting, telling his staff “Holy s—, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.”  –Fox News

“Baquet, speaking to his colleagues in a town hall meeting soon after the testimony concluded, acknowledged the Times had been caught ‘a little tiny bit flat-footed’ by the outcome of Mueller’s investigation,” according to Jeff Gerth – the author of CJR’s lengthy retrospective.

“That would prove to be more than an understatement,” he continued. “But neither Baquet nor his successor, nor any of the paper’s reporters, would offer anything like a postmortem of the paper’s Trump-Russia saga, unlike the examination the Times did of its coverage before the Iraq War.”

According to Gerth, the Times destroyed its credibility outside of its “own bubble.”

What’s more, the Times appeared to legitimize former British spy, Christopher Steele, who was indirectly paid by the Clinton campaign to fabricate the infamous ‘dossier’ that so much of the Russiagate coverage – and the DOJ’s sham investigation, was based on.

The Times appeared to legitimize Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy who authored the infamous dossier, claiming he had “a credible track record” while Steele’s so-called “primary” source was telling the FBI that Steele “misstated or exaggerated” in his report and that information stemming from Russia was “rumor and speculation.”

Part three offered examples of the Times’ slight-of-hand coverage against Trump in comparison to other hostile outlets. For example, Trump explained his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, mentioning the “Russia thing” as being a “made-up story” to NBC’s Lester Holt but acknowledged the firing would likely “lengthen out the investigation.”

“The media focused on the ‘Russia thing’ quote; the New York Times did five stories over the next week citing the ‘Russia thing’ remarks but leaving out the fuller context. The Post and CNN, by comparison, included additional language in their first-day story,” Gerth wrote.

In another instance, the Times avoided covering some of the more damning texts from Peter Strzok, who wrote “there’s no big there, there” shortly after the appointment of Special Counsel Robert  Mueller, something Gerth noted was covered by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.  -Fox News

In closing, Gerth concluded that “the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work” is responsible for the broad distrust in the media.

No kidding.

“In January 2018, for example, the New York Times ignored a publicly available document showing that the FBI’s lead investigator didn’t think, after ten months of inquiry into possible Trump-Russia ties, that there was much there. This omission disserved Times readers. The paper says its reporting was thorough and ‘in line with our editorial standards,” wrote Gerth. “Another axiom of journalism that was sometimes neglected in the Trump-Russia coverage was the failure to seek and reflect comment from people who are the subject of serious criticism. The Times guidelines call it a ‘special obligation.’ Yet in stories by the Times involving such disparate figures as Joseph Mifsud (the Maltese academic who supposedly started the whole FBI inquiry), Christopher Steele (the former British spy who authored the dossier), and Konstantin Kilimnik (the consultant cited by some as the best evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump), the paper’s reporters failed to include comment from the person being criticized.“

This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Comments

U.S. News

Proud Boys Sedition Trial Suspended AGAIN After Feds Admit Defense Witness Was An FBI Informant

Published

1 day ago

on

24 March, 2023

Information Liberation

Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Proud Boys sedition trial was suspended for a second time on Wednesday after the feds admitted in court that a witness intimately involved in the Proud Boys defense team was secretly an FBI informant.

From The Epoch Times, “Did FBI Informant Spy on Proud Boys Defendants and Their Jan. 6 Trial Attorneys?”:

Defense attorneys in the Proud Boys seditious-conspiracy trial in Washington D.C. learned late March 22 that one of their own defense witnesses who was about to testify had worked as an FBI informant for at least 22 months.

They asked for an emergency hearing before U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly and filed a motion to compel the U.S. Department of Justice to disclose if the witness has been spying on the defense team.

Judge Kelly suspended the trial until March 24 and converted March 23 from a day of testimony into a motions hearing.

Zachary Rehl, one of five Proud Boys defendants, filed a motion on behalf of his co-defendants seeking a court order to compel prosecutors to disclose any recordings or reports made by confidential human sources (CHS)—informants—about the defendants and their attorneys.

Defense attorney Carmen Hernandez said the information given to the defense team on March 22 raises “serious and substantiated allegations of governmental misconduct surrounding the surreptitious invasion and interference of the defense team by the government through a confidential human source, at the government’s behest.”

Judge Kelly ordered prosecutors to file a response to the motion by 1 p.m. EDT on March 23. A hearing on the matter will begin at 3 p.m.

The trial began Dec. 19, 2022, in U.S. District Court. Prosecutors wrapped up their case on March 17.

Defense Witness was Prosecution Informant

After the close of testimony on March 22, prosecutors disclosed that a witness on the defense list who was due in court on March 23 had worked as an FBI informant from April 2021 through to at least January 2023.

“During this period of time, the CHS [informant] has been in contact via telephone, text messaging, and other electronic means, with one or more of the counsel for the defense and at least one defendant,” the motion said.

“The CHS also participated in prayer meetings with members of one or more of the defendants’ families. The CHS also engaged in discussions with one of the defendant’s family members about replacing one of the defense counsel.”

Judge Kelly should have thrown the case out rather than suspend it. 

The evidence is now overwhelming that the feds are hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense and denying the Proud Boys their right to a fair trial. 

This post was originally published at Information Liberation

Continue Reading

U.S. News

Video: Rand Paul Grills Blinken On Stonewalling Of COVID Origin Investigation

“You won’t help us investigate this.”

Published

2 days ago

on

23 March, 2023

Steve Watson

Screenshot

Senator Rand Paul grilled Secretary of State Antony Blinken Wednesday, accusing the State Department of engaging in a lack of transparency when it comes to providing documents related to the ongoing probe of the origins of COVID.

Paul asked Blinken why documents related to funding of coronavirus research have not been provided to him despite repeated requests.

The Senator told Blinken that he had requested the material “on September 12th and November 7th of last year.”

“My question is, what’s the State Department hiding?” Paul asked, adding “Why won’t you give these records to the American people?”

“There’s a difference between can and may,” Paul continued, adding “You won’t do it, but you can do it.”

Blinken responded “My understanding is that our teams have been working to find an accommodation,” adding he hopes to “find a way forward that answers your concerns so that you get the information that you’re looking for.”

“We’re talking about unclassified material,” Paul shot back, adding “most of this is unclassified. And so we just had a unanimous vote in the Senate and in the House and President Biden just signed a bill saying he’s going to declassify stuff. But if you declassify it and you still hide it from the American people, that’s a problem.”

The Senator continued, “We spend all of this time lambasting authoritarians for lack of transparency, we have these silly networks on TV that are aligned with the Democrat Party saying democracy is under attack. Well, do you think transparency has something to do with democracy? You’re refusing to give records on research, money that went for research.”

“We want to read the research grant proposals. We want to read what the people in Wuhan sent back to the State Department saying they did. Which viruses did they create?” Paul further urged.

“And yet you won’t help us investigate this. You refuse and it makes — it is reminiscent of the countries we criticize for lack of transparency. And yet you sit there and say you’re still going to continue to refuse,” Paul asserted.

Blinken tried to squirm out of the grilling by saying he doesn’t have the expertise to comment, prompting Paul to respond “We don’t want to hear your spin.”

“We can’t just accept your spin on it because people — there may be self-interested the people who funded the program. We’re just asking to look at the data. But so far it has been no. We’ve had a few phone calls, but we don’t want your spin on it. We want to look at the documents ourselves,” Paul emphasised.

Related:

Rand Paul: “People Saying COVID Didn’t Come From A Lab Are Self-interested”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

    • Continue Reading

    U.S. News

    Video: MSNBC Panel Says That Criticising George Soros In Any Way Is “DANGEROUS”

    “It definitely feels like a dog whistle that is dangerous.”

    Published

    3 days ago

    on

    22 March, 2023

    Steve Watson

    Screenshot

    During a discussion on the potential Trump indictment, an MSNBC panel claimed that Trump supporters, and anyone else for that matter, are “dangerous” for criticising George Soros.

    Perpetual race baiting grifter Joy Reid turned to former CIA officer Tracy Walder, and said “The fact that they keep throwing George Soros’ name, we’ve talked a lot in our show meetings, is it definitely feels like a dog whistle that is dangerous.”

    Walder replied, “It absolutely feels like a dog whistle that’s dangerous.”

    She continued, “Look, most of these groups, the Oath Keepers, Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys, they all subscribe to what you are all referring to as the great replacement theory.”

    “This is why we see these spikes in racism and anti-semitism,” and “they are ascribing to this belief and it’s stoking this division,” Walder added. 

    She then suggested that “Trump has for multiple years now called for a civil war.”

    There were no actual facts provided as to why criticising George Soros’ manipulation of U.S. politics and culture is racist.

    Watch:

    Of course, Joy Reid and MSNBC are going to propagandise for Soros, given that he pumps millions into Democrat election campaigns, as well as “black-led justice organizations”.

    Soros Has Pumped $50 MILLION (So Far) Into 2020 Democrat Election Campaigns
    Soros Foundation Announces It Is ‘Doubling Down’ On Funding “Black-led Justice Organizations”

    Is journalist Glenn Greenwald a dangerous racist for pointing out how Soros continually seeks to control the reality narrative?

    Video: Newt Gingrich Says Democrats Are “Owned By People Who Are Financed By George Soros”
    Activist Group Suing DeSantis Received Nearly $1.4 Million From Soros Network

    SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

    Follow on Twitter:

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

    ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

    We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

    Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

    Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

    • Continue Reading

    Trending