4 ms·

One of last year's winner: > Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post > For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest

by 781 7y ago

One of last year's winner: > Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post > For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.

Bendingo 7y ago
This perfectly demonstrates the state of US media (and western media in general). After over 2 years of misinformation, unfounded allegations, and downright fabrications, the media are now congratulating themselves on a job well done. It's clear that they have no intention of abandoning their Russiagate narrative, despite Mueller's report.
- istjohn 7y ago
  So you've read the report? To my knowledge, the only portion of the 300+ page report that has so far been published is a a sentence fragment quoted by Trump appointee Attorney General William Barr in his 4 page summary. Seems a little premature to conclude we have the whole story. Also, multiple people close to Trump have been convicted of various crimes as a result of the past two years of investigation. Even if once the dust settles Trump stands clean and pure as the driven snow, investigators already have plenty to show for their work.
  - johnnyb9 7y ago
    If the report is so damning otherwise, why is Barr even releasing it?
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Because Democrats control the House and have subpoena power.
- catacombs 7y ago
  > After over 2 years of misinformation, unfounded allegations, and downright fabrications, the media are now congratulating themselves on a job well done. How delusional are you?
basetop 7y ago
I don't get why you are being downvoted. Mueller said there was no russian collusion. And The NYTimes even published an "apology". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-collusion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-... It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.
- istjohn 7y ago
  An op-ed column does not speak for the newspaper it is published in. It's literally the opposite of the editorial board. Thus the name "op-ed." Mueller never said there was no collusion. Trump said Mueller said there was no collusion. Barr's summary quotes Mueller's report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” So they didn't find proof of collusion. That is not the same as concluding that collusion did not occur. Barr also provides this other quote from Mueller's report: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
  - basetop 7y ago
    As far as I know, op-ed stood for opinon editorial. To say it is "opposite of the editorial board" doesn't make sense when the editorial board themselves contribute to the op-ed. For example, the editorial board endorsed hillary clinton on their op-ed. How could that possibly be "opposite of the editorial board"? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl... Also, david brooks is a well established journalist who has written for the nytimes for a long time. Not saying he speaks for The NYTimes but I'm sure he expressed some of their sentiments. In our legal system, we have the concept innocent until proven guilty. "Didn't find proof of collusion" means there wasn't any collusion for all intents and purposes. To claim collusion without proof is partaking in the world of conspiracy theories. As for Mueller's statement, of course it doesn't exonerate Trump. In order to be exonerated, you have to be convicted of a crime first. You are exonerated of convictions. You also aren't exonerated for russian collusion because you've never been convicted of russian collusion. Mueller's statement apllies to you, me and pretty much everyone on earth. You make it impossible to have a logical and rational conversation because you've decided to reject logic and rationality for politics, semantics and conspiracy theory. This is why the surge of politics on social media worries me.
makomk 7y ago
Could've been worse. One of last year's nominees was an outright conspiracy theory involving Russian mind control chemicals and pretending that an obscure minor player in the Litvinenko investigation broke the case open to turn his apparent suicide into a Russian assassination.

by 781 7y ago

Bendingo 7y ago

This perfectly demonstrates the state of US media (and western media in general). After over 2 years of misinformation, unfounded allegations, and downright fabrications, the media are now congratulating themselves on a job well done. It's clear that they have no intention of abandoning their Russiagate narrative, despite Mueller's report.

istjohn 7y ago
So you've read the report? To my knowledge, the only portion of the 300+ page report that has so far been published is a a sentence fragment quoted by Trump appointee Attorney General William Barr in his 4 page summary. Seems a little premature to conclude we have the whole story. Also, multiple people close to Trump have been convicted of various crimes as a result of the past two years of investigation. Even if once the dust settles Trump stands clean and pure as the driven snow, investigators already have plenty to show for their work.
- johnnyb9 7y ago
  If the report is so damning otherwise, why is Barr even releasing it?
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Because Democrats control the House and have subpoena power.
catacombs 7y ago
> After over 2 years of misinformation, unfounded allegations, and downright fabrications, the media are now congratulating themselves on a job well done. How delusional are you?

basetop 7y ago

I don't get why you are being downvoted. Mueller said there was no russian collusion. And The NYTimes even published an "apology". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-collusion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/mueller-trump-no-... It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.

istjohn 7y ago
An op-ed column does not speak for the newspaper it is published in. It's literally the opposite of the editorial board. Thus the name "op-ed." Mueller never said there was no collusion. Trump said Mueller said there was no collusion. Barr's summary quotes Mueller's report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” So they didn't find proof of collusion. That is not the same as concluding that collusion did not occur. Barr also provides this other quote from Mueller's report: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
- basetop 7y ago
  As far as I know, op-ed stood for opinon editorial. To say it is "opposite of the editorial board" doesn't make sense when the editorial board themselves contribute to the op-ed. For example, the editorial board endorsed hillary clinton on their op-ed. How could that possibly be "opposite of the editorial board"? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cl... Also, david brooks is a well established journalist who has written for the nytimes for a long time. Not saying he speaks for The NYTimes but I'm sure he expressed some of their sentiments. In our legal system, we have the concept innocent until proven guilty. "Didn't find proof of collusion" means there wasn't any collusion for all intents and purposes. To claim collusion without proof is partaking in the world of conspiracy theories. As for Mueller's statement, of course it doesn't exonerate Trump. In order to be exonerated, you have to be convicted of a crime first. You are exonerated of convictions. You also aren't exonerated for russian collusion because you've never been convicted of russian collusion. Mueller's statement apllies to you, me and pretty much everyone on earth. You make it impossible to have a logical and rational conversation because you've decided to reject logic and rationality for politics, semantics and conspiracy theory. This is why the surge of politics on social media worries me.

makomk 7y ago

Could've been worse. One of last year's nominees was an outright conspiracy theory involving Russian mind control chemicals and pretending that an obscure minor player in the Litvinenko investigation broke the case open to turn his apparent suicide into a Russian assassination.