The New York Times - They're even more evil now

Apparently there's no truth to the Russia Bounty claims.  There does seem to be mounting evidence that the NY Times are basically stenographers for the Intelligence Community.


terp said:

NY Times stands by Russiagate reporting despite new documents that have been released showing that Intelligence knew assertions of collusion were unsubstantiated.   Please note that I am unable to see the full NY Times defense of their reporting as it is behind a pay wall.

I just read the entire article in the print addition. That is not what the article said. 

Peter Strzok's notes disputed aspects of the NY Times article about the Steele dossier. He questioned its reliability. But Strzok had not participated in the interview of Steele's sources. Lindsay Graham tried to make a big deal out of this. Strzok's lawyer said that Strzok's notes were"nothing more than a dedicated counterintelligence professional diligently vetting public reports of intelligence information".

The article then went on to say that the FBI had identified contacts between Carter Page and Russian intelligence officials and contacts by Manafort with such Russian intelligence officials as well as discussions by Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn with the Russian ambassador.

"Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman said 'We stand by our reprorting'." 


I have to give them credit for this headline. Straightforward and to the point. No both-sides here.


terp said:

Apparently there's no truth to the Russia Bounty claims.  There does seem to be mounting evidence that the NY Times are basically stenographers for the Intelligence Community.

 I copied some text ..  Times makes copying text tedious. If you need more, I’ll try again.

While Mr. Strzok was still working on other aspects of the larger Russia investigation, he was not part of the team working on the wiretap renewals, his lawyer said. Another senior F.B.I. counterintelligence official, Jennifer Boone, was supervising a team in charge of determining the sources of information for the dossier and of handling the wiretap targeting Mr. Page, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Mr. Strzok was later removed from the Russia investigation after the Justice Department inspector general discovered numerous texts on his work phone expressing animus toward the election of Mr. Trump. The inspector general, however, did not find evidence that he took or withheld any official action because of his personal opinions.

Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of the Times article, headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

Still, he also added, the bureau had identified contacts between Mr. Page and Russian intelligence officials before the campaign; contacts between an associate of Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman, and Russian intelligence; and contacts between two campaign advisers, Jeff Sessions and Michael T. Flynn, and Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said, “We stand by our reporting.”

The wiretapping of Mr. Page was a small part of the overall investigation into Russia’s covert attempt to help tilt the election in Mr. Trump’s favor and whether any Trump campaign affiliates had conspired in that effort. The inspector general report found that the opening of the investigation met legal standards and that the Steele dossier had played no role in that decision;



mtierney said:

terp said:

Apparently there's no truth to the Russia Bounty claims.  There does seem to be mounting evidence that the NY Times are basically stenographers for the Intelligence Community.

 I copied some text ..  Times makes copying text tedious. If you need more, I’ll try again.

While Mr. Strzok was still working on other aspects of the larger Russia investigation, he was not part of the team working on the wiretap renewals, his lawyer said. Another senior F.B.I. counterintelligence official, Jennifer Boone, was supervising a team in charge of determining the sources of information for the dossier and of handling the wiretap targeting Mr. Page, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Mr. Strzok was later removed from the Russia investigation after the Justice Department inspector general discovered numerous texts on his work phone expressing animus toward the election of Mr. Trump. The inspector general, however, did not find evidence that he took or withheld any official action because of his personal opinions.

Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of the Times article, headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

Still, he also added, the bureau had identified contacts between Mr. Page and Russian intelligence officials before the campaign; contacts between an associate of Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman, and Russian intelligence; and contacts between two campaign advisers, Jeff Sessions and Michael T. Flynn, and Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said, “We stand by our reporting.”

The wiretapping of Mr. Page was a small part of the overall investigation into Russia’s covert attempt to help tilt the election in Mr. Trump’s favor and whether any Trump campaign affiliates had conspired in that effort. The inspector general report found that the opening of the investigation met legal standards and that the Steele dossier had played no role in that decision;


 I think you got your Russia stories mixed up. Understandable given the many Russia scandals surrounding  trump administration


Maureen Dowd doing the most Maureen Dowd thing ever - Forgetting about Hillary Clinton.

In a column Saturday morning, New York Times opinion writer Maureen Dowd somehow forgot about the 2016 election–namely, who ran on the Democratic ticket. The piece was intended as a reflection on the 1984 race, when Walter Mondale chose New York representative Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate—the last time a male Democratic nominee chose a female running mate. But Dowd wrote, “It’s hard to fathom but it has been 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket.”

The error overlooked the fact that Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine ran on the Democratic ticket four years ago. “Either @timkaine and I had a very vivid shared hallucination four years ago or Maureen had too much pot brownie before writing her column again,” Clinton tweeted. By mid-morning, the Grey Lady had issued a correction.

The Times has been at this for a long time.  Even Pulitzer prize winner Walter Durante denied the Holodomor in this very paper.  


I actually think this is a pretty decent article about possible response bias in the presidential polls, so I'm not bashing the NYT.  I just think this woman in NC is pretty amusing.  She's too afraid to put her Trump sign outside, and doesn't like to admit it to people in her town.  But she declares her Trump support to the New York Times.  I guess she assumes nobody in her town reads it, so she can stay anonymous.

‘Hidden’ Trump Voters Exist. But How Much Impact Will They Have? Republicans insist that millions of Americans want to vote for Trump but won’t admit it. Polling experts tell a different story.

t wasn’t the most obvious spot for a flag that people usually buy to make a big statement. But there it was, peeking out from the inside wall of a garage, the white “Trump 2020” lettering just visible from the street in this suburban Charlotte neighborhood.

From the front porch, Tiffany Blythe, a stay-at-home mom, said that she and many of the people she knows would be voting for Donald Trump in November — but that many of them were nervous talking about it. And that hesitation is why Ms. Blythe doesn’t trust the polls that are now forecasting losses this fall for Mr. Trump and other Republicans in North Carolina and beyond.

“I’m not buying it,” Ms. Blythe said. “There are a lot of silent voters, and more will come out before the election. I think a lot of states are turning red from blue, but you don’t hear about that in the media.”

woohoo! lookit the NYT with their big boy pants on!



back to their old garbage now


I guess this is the place for all Times questions, so....

Any vertex fans out there?  


oops, they did it again


mtierney said:

I guess this is the place for all Times questions, so....

Any vertex fans out there?  

 nobody?


are you kidding me?


Really? If someone didn't watch the debate, does this at all accurately tell them what actually transpired on that stage?



Any headline without sh!tshow in it doesn't do it justice.


drummerboy said:

Any headline without sh!tshow in it doesn't do it justice.

 any headline that doesn't call out Trump specifically for the **** show isn't accurate in the least. 


On the website, top heading is "Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in Chaotic First Debate", above a photo carousel. Left headline beside carousel is "Trump Refuses to Categorically Denounce White Supremacists". Right headline, below fact-checking graphic, is "Chris Wallace Tries to Rein In an Unruly Trump at First Debate"

PVW said:

On the website, top heading is "Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in Chaotic First Debate", above a photo carousel. Left headline beside carousel is "Trump Refuses to Categorically Denounce White Supremacists". Right headline, below fact-checking graphic, is "Chris Wallace Tries to Rein In an Unruly Trump at First Debate"

 I'm on the app. And that's what you see. It's pretty much journalistic malpractice on the app. 


drummerboy said:

Here's a better piece from the NYT site

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/us/presidential-debate-trump-biden#president-trumps-first-debate-showing-amounted-to-an-onstage-shouting-of-his-twitter-feed-at-joe-biden

 they've already changed the headlines on the app. Maybe they're paying attention to those of us tweeting at them. 


I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?


basil said:

I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?

 people pay attention to mainstream media. Both siderism gave us Trump in the first place and it could help him be reelected  


basil said:

I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?

They've helped to normalize the most abnormal creature to ever be Prez.

That's kind of important.


The Times goes for the both-sides Gold


drummerboy said:

The Times goes for the both-sides Gold

 Also:  "The Sun Did Not Explode Today.  Are Scientists Telling Us Everything They Know?"


drummerboy said:

The Times goes for the both-sides Gold

 the flip side of both siderism -- EVERYTHING that happens is bad for Democrats.


ml1 said:

 the flip side of both siderism -- EVERYTHING that happens is bad for Democrats.

 But this is excellent news for John McCain.


on the one hand, it's just a small technical error. OTOH, it's an example of the Times missing the big picture story, which is that a far right-wing court declared a law that was 75 years old to be unconstitutional for...reasons.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Latest Jobs

Lessons/Instruction

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertisement

Advertise here!