Banging

Because it's better than not banging at Hillary's headquarters.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Should We Be Surprised That the New York Times Protected a Republican Before an Election?

If you're over 30, no.

Exactly a week before Election Day, The New York Times published a story entitled, "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. sees no clear ties to Russia." (I'm not even going to link directly to it because we now know, and even knew then, it to be most certainly untrue.

If we knew that, the Times must have too. But they cherrypicked facts and asserted, based on the FBI, who was complicit in its own way in attacking Hillary Clinton inappropriately to affect the election, The FBI had no qualms about publishing a letter accusing but not accusing Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing a week before the election, but even CNBC, which is not the most pro-Clinton news source, could see on the same day that Comey was covering up Russia's involvement in our election.

Well, not we have evidence that the Times purposely covered up information that contradicted what Comey was telling them. From the Hiil:

A spokesman for Rep. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Saturday blasted the New York Times for publishing a story before the election downplaying Donald Trump's links to Russia without using quotes from Reid that challenged the story.
Adam Jentleson tweeted a link to an Oct. 31 Times article headlined "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia."
"I'll say it: NYT interviewed Reid for this story. He said things contrary to the story. NYT discarded the interview," he added.
"Maybe some want to know why the NYT seemed to cover for Comey's FBI? Maybe even some at the NYT? Maybe not? I'm just asking questions," Jentleson added later.

So, according to Harry Reid's spokesman, the Senate Majority (EDIT: Minority) Leader of the United States made a statement to the Times that contradicted the FBI director, but left that out, thus changing the whole meaning of the story. That should be a shocker, right?

Well, not really, to me. I don't think that six weeks ago is long enough for us to forget how the Times shamelessly perseverated on Hillary Clinton's e-mails... On a Google search of "New York Times Hillary Clinton E-mails" I received about 22,800,000 results, including "Why Clinton's Emails Matter, 10 Questions (and Answers) About New Email Trove, "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign," "Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty" (don't even get me started on how awful the press was to Huma, who is an incredible person that didn't deserve anything she got), "Hillary Clinton Assails James Comey, Calling Email Decision 'Deeply Troubling," "Justice Department Obtains Warrant to Review Clinton Aide's Emails," "FBI Begins Review of Clinton Aide's Emails, "Donations to Foundation Vexed Hillary Clinton's Aides, Emails Show," and "Chappatte on Hillary Clinton's Emails." Those were all just on the first page of Google, and all were published within ten days before Election Day. And this was, as Matthew Yglesias put it, "The Real Clinton Email Scandal Is That a Bullshit Story Has Dominated the Campaign," which I had put an entire Saturday into documenting waaaaay back on September 3rd.

But feeling free to make editorial decisions that deliberately damage the Democrat in a Presidential election is one thing; hiding important information to keep the Republican safe is another. And this is not the first time they've done it. They did this in the 2004 election as well, protecting George W. Bush:
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.
The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.

Those who forget history and all that...