Seems pretty clear why to me: "Mr. Goldman eventually walked back some of his statements, but it was too late. Mr. Goldman had just given Mr. Trump something th

Seems pretty clear why to me: "Mr. Goldman eventually walked back some of his statements, but it was too late. Mr. Goldman had just given Mr. Trump something that looked like a Facebook-stamped exoneration." The new standard of honest reporting has less to do with whether something is true or not, and is more about whether it fits into the correct anti-Trump narrative. (I even saw one of their well-known writers openly complaining on their popular verified Twitter account about the NYT veering from the narrative a few weeks back.) What's particularly interesting about this case is that the dangerous, divergent narrative which must not be spoken used to be the standard understanding of what Russian propaganda does: it stokes existing internal problems. Of course, the Times in particular has apparently always seen its role as pushing a narrative; I seem to recall at least one one piece by an ex-NYT employee talking about this made it to HN before.