New York Times Admits ‘We Built Our Newsroom’ Around Russia Collusion Hoax

[Cardinal]

Mueller can ... and he did.

Nope, and if you followed the line of questioning you’d understand why.

 

[Barnacle]

Nope, and if you followed the line of questioning you’d understand why.

Cardinal: "... the only reason Trump wasn't arrested for obstruction of justice was because the DOJ forbids indicting a sitting President."

Mueller: "...we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

 

[Cardinal]

Cardinal: "... the only reason Trump wasn't arrested for obstruction of justice was because the DOJ forbids indicting a sitting President."

Mueller: "...we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

You clearly did not watch the hearing.

 

[Barnacle]

You clearly did not watch the hearing.

I read the transcript.

 

[Jason Warfield]

The Goebbels Media exposed.

Clearly, you did not read the transcripts that Slate obtained. You only included what Breitbart wanted to say...not the actual transcripts. 98% of the transcripts had nothing to do with Mueller or the Russia investigation...it was about Trump's racism and how to report on that and to get the readers to move on to the next topic of discussion about Trump!!!!!

Please educate yourself:

Inside the New York Times town hall.

 

[Nickyjo]

The Goebbels Media exposed.

Baloney. They were wrong about conspiring with Russia, (tho the fact that Trump didn’t report Russian overtures tells me a lot about his loyalty), but right about obstruction. And with all of Trump’s lies, you call the Times Goebbels-like?

 

[LouC]

Clearly, you did not read the transcripts that Slate obtained. You only included what Breitbart wanted to say...not the actual transcripts. 98% of the transcripts had nothing to do with Mueller or the Russia investigation...it was about Trump's racism and how to report on that and to get the readers to move on to the next topic of discussion about Trump!!!!!

Please educate yourself:

Inside the New York Times town hall.

To the bold, for them, not going to happen, now, or ever!

 

[LouC]

Baloney. They were wrong about conspiring with Russia, (tho the fact that Trump didn’t report Russian overtures tells me a lot about his loyalty), but right about obstruction. And with all of Trump’s lies, you call the Times Goebbels-like?

Wrong about them initiating intentional illegal conspiracy attempts with Russia, they certainly were guilty of ignorantly conspiring with Russia.

 

[LouC]

The OP headline is a flat out lie!

The New York Times admitted no such thing.

The OP chooses to engage in posting alternative facts that just aren't true, based on totally out of context that Breitbart cherry picked from a Slate article and Slate produced transcript of the meeting that Dean Baquet had with a large number of the NYT print page staff. The meeting lasted over an hour, it was a loose townhall type Q&A session, with frank language, and frank ideas being passed up and down the chain of command.

There was no admission from anyone at the NYT that the NYT "built" anything around any "Russia Collusion hoax".

 

[American]

Reality is in the pudding. They along with most of the MSM participated in a concerted and coordinated effort to oust a duly elected POTUS.

BTW: those of us who watched all this go down with our minds and eyes open, didn't need this recording to help us realize the truth.

DoJ IG and other investigations will soon tell the story of actual collusion within the FBI/DoJ on the Russian hoax.

 

[ocean515]

Baloney. They were wrong about conspiring with Russia, (tho the fact that Trump didn’t report Russian overtures tells me a lot about his loyalty), but right about obstruction. And with all of Trump’s lies, you call the Times Goebbels-like?

The New York Times forced to retract another fake news story

 

[ocean515]

The OP headline is a flat out lie!

The New York Times admitted no such thing.

The OP chooses to engage in posting alternative facts that just aren't true, based on totally out of context that Breitbart cherry picked from a Slate article and Slate produced transcript of the meeting that Dean Baquet had with a large number of the NYT print page staff. The meeting lasted over an hour, it was a loose townhall type Q&A session, with frank language, and frank ideas being passed up and down the chain of command.

There was no admission from anyone at the NYT that the NYT "built" anything around any "Russia Collusion hoax".

Really?

Then post the proof.

 

[LouC]

Really?

Then post the proof.

The proof is in the transcript at the link from Slate that the OP included in their OP.

It is there for all to pull up and read and see how utterly wrong the OP's thread title is and the other cherry picked Breitbart BS is.

You just need to read it and comprehend, like me and others, without improperly applying your, our, particular political bias.

:2wave:

 

[LouC]

Really?

Then post the proof.

Now just be cautious. The transcript at Slate is very long, 15 pages of text in a WORD document, at Century Gothic 11 font.

It is a long read, it has a lot of words, so I don't want you straining yourself getting to the truth of it!

 

[ocean515]

The proof is in the transcript at the link from Slate that the OP included in their OP.

It is there for all to pull up and read and see how utterly wrong the OP's thread title is and the other cherry picked Breitbart BS is.

You just need to read it and comprehend, like me and others, without improperly applying your, our, particular political bias.

:2wave:

I read the transcript from Slate.

So where's the proof to support your claim?

Just claiming it's in the transcript proves nothing.

 

[ocean515]

Now just be cautious. The transcript at Slate is very long, 15 pages of text in a WORD document, at Century Gothic 11 font.

It is a long read, it has a lot of words, so I don't want you straining yourself getting to the truth of it!

A pathetic and lame post apparently designed to hide the fact you have no proof to support your claim.

 

[Nickyjo]

The New York Times forced to retract another fake news story

News outlets from the NYTimes to FOX retract and correct stories they get wrong. But that headline, to quote FOX, is hardly an indication of a fair and balanced article is to follow.

Get back to us when Trump retracts anything.

 

[MTAtech]

Well, that was a waste of time. If you just read what the NYT editor said in context without the crybaby poopy pants narrative around it....he didn't really say anything that note worthy.

I declare this thread....FAKE NEWS!!!

You expect any less from breitbart? The actual story that they mention (Inside the New York Times town hall.) doesn't say what they say it says.

 

[LouC]

I read the transcript from Slate.

So where's the proof to support your claim?

Just claiming it's in the transcript proves nothing.

You may have read it (which I really doubt) but you obviously did not comprehend what you read if you did read it if you don't know why it proved the OP was as I said it was.

 

[LouC]

A pathetic and lame post apparently designed to hide the fact you have no proof to support your claim.

No.

That is not it at all.

Just a friendly cautionary warning is all that was.

 

[slick]

Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism

Executive Editor Dean Baquet: “We built our newsroom to cover one story [Russia collusion], and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story [Trump’s racism].”

In an astounding audio transcript leaked to Slate, NY Times executive editor Dean Baquet reveals what we all knew: The NY Times is out to get Trump. It’s deliberate, it’s planned, and it’s shifting after Russia collusion failed to portraying Trump as racist.

Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism

This is a smoking gun. It shows the most powerful news organization in the country congratulating itself for setting the anti-Trump narrative on Russia collusion, and seamlessly transitioning to setting a narrative of Trump as racist after collusion flopped.

There is a collusion case to be made, but it’s not about Trump and Russia. It’s about powerful news organizations throwing their weight behind Democrats.

What's even more sleazy is that the Times has begun an effort to change history in the ugliest way. Learn about 1619 is now according to the Times
when the country was born, not 1776 nor 1789.

 

[WCH]

Those who watched with their eyes wide open saw the Russians help Trump get elected and make him an illegitimate president.

Don't you know your party has moved on from that narrative? It was hogwash.

 

[MTAtech]

Ari Fleischer
‏Verified account @AriFleischer

The most troubling part of NYT editor Dean Baquet’s speech to his newsroom was his admission: “our readers...cheer us when we take on Donald Trump.” He added that Trump voters don’t read the Times.
6:12 AM - 18 Aug 2019

NYT is just a propaganda paper for the hate president Trump resist folks!!

"Propaganda Paper"-- TRANSLATION: "A newspaper that publishes facts that I don't like."

You will be hard pressed to find reporting in the NYT news section that isn't factual.

 

[MTAtech]

Those who watched with their eyes wide open saw the Russians help Trump get elected and make him an illegitimate president.

Don't you know your party has moved on from that narrative? It was hogwash.

I don't know about the "party," but the statement that Russians helped Trump get elected is the finding of U.S. intelligence and the Mueller investigation.

 

[Moot]

Don't you know your party has moved on from that narrative? It was hogwash.

I suggest you watch "The Greatest Hack" on Netflix.