Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.
It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.
What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media.
No shit?
...
But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling and its possible implications for his father.
The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.
(bold mine)
When the essential facts of the Post’s reporting were confirmed and the emails verified independently about a year and a half later, we could have fessed up to our misjudgment. But, like Russia collusion, we didn’t make the hard choice of transparency.
From the sound of it, they didn't even see there was a choice.
The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.
(bold mine)
When the essential facts of the Post’s reporting were confirmed and the emails verified independently about a year and a half later, we could have fessed up to our misjudgment. But, like Russia collusion, we didn’t make the hard choice of transparency.
From the sound of it, they didn't even see there was a choice.
2 comments:
"Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion."
No, he did not allude to anything. He blatantly and repeatedly lied that there was direct evidence and that he had not only seen it, but that it was more that circumstantial, there was plenty of it, and it was all in plain sight.
This despite the fact that his own committee had nothing but evidence to the contrary and it had been common knowledge to anyone who took the time to check that the entire Russia collusion idea was a Clinton campaign funded, CIA and DOJ promoted farce!
He continues to claim that everything he said was accurate.
“YOU GET MISLED BY SOURCES YOU TRUSTED”
That’s why you seek evidence independently you biased morons.
Don’t just get on your knees to service the libtard tranny.
”YOU’RE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED IN A NARRATIVE”
And at that point you cease being a “journalist” (if they ever were one) and become a campaigner.
No longer reporting, just keeping a narrative alive…even if it’s an outright lie.
I’m so happy these scumbags are supported with our tax dollars to feed us the “progressive” BS.
Post a Comment