28 ms·

How did so much of the media get the Steele dossier so wrong?

66 points by missinfo 5y ago

guilhas 5y ago
The saddest part are the brainwashed in discussions repeating talking points from the mainstream without thinking, and calling everyone else crazy. Then echoing themselves with podcasts and etc that repeat the same talking points and opinions No doubt the mainstream media keeps reaching new lows, supported by the fact checkers, and the big tech censorship But they will not learn anything... The current mainstream coverage of the Rittenhouse case is just surreal, and the opinion segments are disgusting
missinfo 5y ago
https://archive.ph/oOEXQ https://archive.ph/oOEXQ
ComputerGuru 5y ago
> That prompted a statement promising further examination from The Journal and something far more significant from The Washington Post’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee. She took a step that is almost unheard-of: removing large chunks of erroneous articles from 2017 and 2019, as well as an offending video. This is why archive.org and its ilk are now more important than ever before. We can’t allow history to be erased like this in the name of saving face.
- scohesc 5y ago
  I think that's a big downside of the internet compared to traditional media. It's so easy to just remove anything after the fact without any accountability. Don't worry, it's just WaPo rewriting history instead of issuing corrections and retractions officially with justification and reasonings. Nope, just remove it to save face. So disgusting.
crate_barre 5y ago
The media are like day traders. They can ride a topic up, and ride a topic down. They rode Trump up, and rode Trump down.
- mc32 5y ago
  I think that’s an insult to day traders. More apt would be pump and dump schemes ala Stratton oakmont —which is illegal. News orgs should be held to account when they do not partake in due diligence. They used to require multiple sources before embarking on exposes and when making inflammatory accusations. Today quoting an anonymous source on Twitter is sufficient basis for articles on policy, society, etc.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    It’s only an insult if you deny amorality. They are not pumping and dumping because they have no affinity towards seeing one stock go up. They will pick any stock that has price action. Let’s put it this way, if the US electorate was shrewd enough to have found Trump boring, it’s would not have been a stock they would have rode. They rode it because they could. The Steel Dossier was them riding the liberal Trump backlash movement. They just don’t give a shit, they are surfing our waves.
- scohesc 5y ago
  One only has to look at who and what owns these massive media conglomerates to realize these companies don't have our best interests at heart. They're all owned by massive, money-making individuals/corporations who just exist to make more money and to keep your eyeballs engaged. They have no "duty" to serve only the facts. Why would we serve just the facts and spend time doing investigative journalism, when we could just run with "anonymous sources" and treat _those_ sources as fact! If only the ones screaming "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were to slightly change their mantra to "freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"
sp0rk 5y ago
This opinion piece casually makes the very bold claim that the Steele Dossier has been disproven now, though the only evidence they seem to provide is that one of the informants has been arrested for lying to the FBI. I have not heard of any evidence that has directly contradicted the dossier, and in fact, I've seen a handful of news stories where other internet commenters have noticed that the timelines discovered from current investigations have matched up with pieces of the dossier. What parts have been disproven, exactly?
- jesterman81 5y ago
  There is ample evidence that shows the Dossier was faked and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It's just not presented with all the hysteria like the collusion story was. If they did they would show how much egg on the face actually exists.
- mdswtchr 5y ago
  Well the FBI believed the Steele dossier was fake when they used it to ask a FISA court judge for a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. This has been known since before the '20 election. So what parts have been disproven? None, the whole thing was a known fabrication from day one. The only real news now is that the authors of it are getting indicted in court and they'll be under oath when asked questions.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  The NYT seems to think it's been discredited: >Now it has been largely discredited by two federal investigations and the indictment of a key source, leaving journalists to reckon how, in the heat of competition, so many were taken in so easily because the dossier seemed to confirm what they already suspected. Do you know something the NYT doesn't?
  - js2 5y ago
    This is a guest essay. Your quote should be attributed to he writer, Bill Grueskin, not to the NYT. https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-How-to-submit-a-Guest-Essay-for-Opinion https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-How-...
huitzitziltzin 5y ago
I don’t think this is an indictment of the media at all. I never saw this material discussed anywhere except in the middle of a forest of qualifications about it being “unconfirmed” or “unproven.” That’s the right way to cover it. No one reading those stories had any business thinking these allegations were proven. I doubt many did. It’s also intrinsically a lot harder for any US news organization to investigate these allegations (which concern private events in Russia!) than it is for them to investigate Gary Hart’s infidelity. It seems like the appropriate way to handle potentially significant but extremely difficult or impossible to verify allegations is to note that they are unverified. I suspect this isn’t going to be a popular opinion here bc people love to crap on “the media,” but imperfect as they are they are the best and frequently only source for important information as it is happening in real time.
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  >No one reading those stories had any business thinking these allegations were proven. I doubt many did. Were you living under a rock? People were frothing at the mouths BEGGING for it to be true.
  - huitzitziltzin 5y ago
    > Were you living under a rock? People were frothing at the mouths BEGGING for it to be true. I wasn't. They were begging for it to be true. But that is very different from (1.) these allegations actually being true, or (2.) anyone's believing they were true.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Some of it did turn out to be true. A few things were confirmed to be false, and quite a few of the more salacious ones remain unconfirmed either way and will probably remain that way. Considering the very guilty looking connections that the whole Trump orbit had with Russia, it's a wonder it didn't get even more traction. I mean, the president's son and campaign official sent an email to Trump's campaign manager inviting him to a meeting with a woman connected to the Kremlin. Multiple officials have gone to jail for Russia connected or Russian adjacent crimes. His national security advisor had secret unofficial meetings with Russia. He also accepted tens of thousands of dollars from a Russian government news organization to give a speech just a few months before becoming the national security advisor (he was even photographed sitting at the head table with Putin). There is nothing in the Steele Dossier that seems out of place, out of character, or even unlikely. Much of it is unconfirmed, but it all fits into the official and true narrative from what we know do far.
dfadsadsf 5y ago
Essentially after 2016 you should treat New York Times, Washington Post and other mainstream press as partisan actors. If they publish something negative about Biden, it's probably true. If it's something negative about Trump, republicans or anyone right of center, it's most likely partisan attack. The difference between op-ed and news is also blurry and frankly should be mostly ignored - selective reporting is a thing. It's a sad state of thing but here we are.
- pstuart 5y ago
  The same NYTimes that shilled the Iraq War for Bush? I have no party affiliation but vote Dem because I consider them to be the lesser of two evils. There's plenty to not like. I'm not a fan in general of Biden but have been less disappointed then I expected to be (and sometimes more). I could enumerate many of his failings (e.g., Hunter Biden's job was corrupt). I find it impossible to discuss anything negative about Trump with his supporters -- it's effectively a cult. I know I'll get downvotes for it but it's true, and incredibly frustrating. There's no opportunity to find consensus -- and no indication this will ever change.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - coolso 5y ago
    > The same NYTimes that shilled the Iraq War for Bush? Organizations can’t change at all within 20 years? Democrats have changed just as much in general. 3/4 of the stuff the blue check marks talk about on Twitter wasn’t even mentioned in passing in the early 00s.
    - pstuart 5y ago
      I think the Overton Window has shifted to the right. I've been explicit in saying that I am not a fan of the Democratic party. They are not above reproach. What's interesting is I never hear any complaints about the GOP from those on the right. Nada. Nothing. This is not whataboutism, it's that these complaints read as tribal warfare, not a search for the common good.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
I tend to defer to Marcy Wheeler when it comes to evaluating this stuff; she spends a lot of time actually looking at primary source material (court filings, etc.), AND she called out the dossier as likely Russian disinformation back in 2017. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/11/the-democrats-newfound-love-for-russian-intelligence-product/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/11/the-democrats-newfound... (2017) https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1460514005672419328 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1460514005672419328 https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/12/source-6a-john-durhams-twitter-charges/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/12/source-6a-john-durhams...
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Note that successful disinformation often mixes lies with truth.
  - mdswtchr 5y ago
    The dossier is a lie, agreed, but you believe it is Russian misinformation? As in the Russians lied about having komprobat on Trump to make Trump look like he was a Russian agent? <stoner voice> That's like totally meta man </stoner voice> The dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, ghostwritten by her campaign, citing ethnic Russian-Americans employed by Clinton controlled think tanks.
mdswtchr 5y ago
This story is much larger than the Steele dossier, and it's a story that augurs a lot of trouble for the US. For starters, Trumpers have not forgotten and will not forget this. That's 30% of the US populations with an intense anger towards the whole Steele story. The Steele dossier was debunked years ago by anyone who followed the story with a modicum of balance - like the late Stephen F Cohen pointed out, how likely is it that Trump, a hotelier, wouldn't be fully aware that top suites at the top hotels in world capitals aren't bugged to high heaven? Why would a pee pee tape embarrass Trump, the personification of the old dictum: "No publicity is bad publicity"? Then, there is the issue of media credibility. Media credibility is already at all time low. We've known for years that the Steele dossier had been rejected because major media outlets realized it was probably bunk. This will further this decline in trust and cement American's media polarization. Also, Trump followers know there is a long list of other immoral/illegal/dishonest assaults on his presidency (no, not including the "Big Lie"). They are seething mad, and they are growing in numbers, recruiting even among ethnic minorities. On the other side, there is a 30% hardcore never-Trump group that has many reasons to be grieved by Trump. Trump's mistreatment of muslim countries was shocking (although, every muslim I know voted for Trump). The environment and pandering to Big Oil. I've tried to write this as balanced as possible because, I see a great danger from my vantage point that of a Latin American immigrant from a country that went through a savage four (or was it forty?) year civil war. It doesn't end well, and our current media should be sacrificed for peace and to air out the laundry. America, you've conjured a very nasty demon you have no experience with.
- V__ 5y ago
  > We've known for years that the Steele dossier had been rejected because major media outlets realized it was probably bunk. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this point. A lot of the dossier has been proven true, some hasn't been proven (yet?) and only one thing has been disproven: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456306559756156930 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456306559756156930 This whole Twitter thread by Seth Abramson is really informative: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456299800735870976 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456299800735870976
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
I wish we could get some journalistic analysis about 2016 news orgs overcovering Trump & insuring his primary win. Specifically, what they're going to change to insure they aren't so trivially manipulated next time.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  They manipulated themselves. "Let's boost publicity for this clown! It makes the Republicans look bad! He's smearing all the other primary candidates! We might even be able to make him win the primary! Plus, it's good for ratings." Yeah. Brilliant. (Though it probably would have worked if the Democrats had run anyone less flawed than Hillary.)
riddleronroof 5y ago
The fact that this was discussed in nyt is good. Hopefully through introspection, better processes emerge.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
The media occasionally sort of becomes unhinged and only talking to itself. It's hard to attribute why this happened but effectively the consequences is that journalistic ethics standards go out the window. This almost always results in people dying. This kind of behaviour is what starts wars or gets politicians assassinated. Since this is NYT I'll use an example from NYT. January 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-... Ok fair. NYtimes reporting that phones got tapped. Not exactly a surprise given snowden and how easy it is to get such data. Almost 100% this article is true. March 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-t... Wait... trump isn't offering the Nytimes their own article? Only months later? By the same author? Does Michael S Schmidt smoke a ton of weed and forgot he himself wrote the article explaining it? So the fact checkers come down and clearly show Schmidt his article saying he must retract? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-learned-obama-tapped-his-phon/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/16/donald-tru... Oh no. Fact checkers kind of got this one wrong. My point... it isn't about facts. Journalistic standard #1 is honesty. They clearly broke the most important rule. It goes further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory) It's a conspiracy theory! Not only is it false... This is the media falling from journalistic standards. Every single time in history where the media does this, people die. In the USA, the last major time the media did this, Mckinley got assassinated.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Why pick McKinley's assassination as your evidence, and not, say, the Spanish-American War? And one person (however important) getting shot isn't what most of us think of when you say "people die". And why pick that as the most recent example, instead of, say, the invasion of Iraq?
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >Why pick McKinley's assassination as your evidence, and not, say, the Spanish-American War? Another excellent example. Thanks! >And one person (however important) getting shot isn't what most of us think of when you say "people die". People die is general usage while I was providing a US example. >And why pick that as the most recent example, instead of, say, the invasion of Iraq? Interesting? I actually dont believe I've seen the news blamed for that invasion. Typically the reasoning is economic. I wish to know more!
mint2 5y ago
The Russian government was working to help trump win, that is a fact, and Trump welcomed it. Trump then showed he was at best trivially manipulated by Putin as president and his campaign manager had literally been giving Russia polling data. Obsessing over the Russia dossier which wasn’t the basis for this investigation and discounting the whole trump Russia thing is like saying sequoia National forest doesn’t exist because one of the trees turned out to be a cell tower. Edit: many downvotes without logical replies, actually without any replies at the moment, shows this comment is making people experience inconvenient truths, which they must cancel. Long live the cancel culture, am I right?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  >Obsessing over the Russia dossier which wasn’t the basis for this investigation Are you sure about that? I read they couldn't have gotten a FISA warrant without it.
- Jtype 5y ago
  You provide no proof or evidence for any of your claims, that's why you have been downvoted. Being downvoted for adding nothing to the discussion is not cancel culture, nobody is offended at what you wrote and no one is trying to remove it from the web or ban you from the platform. I'm hoping that this is sarcasm that went over my head.
  - mint2 5y ago
    I provided no proof because the facts I stated are well known, but more importantly this article itself points out Russia interference in the election and various trump Russia connections that are unrelated to the dossier. It would be weird to reiterating the article we all read, we all read it right? In fact, to continue my analogy, the article itself explains that the rest of the forest is a big factor of why some journalists reported like the cell tower was a tree. So No, I don’t need to provide support of statements that the article we are commenting on already supports. It’s clear those statements are inconvenient to people so they are downvoting and not even reading the article
baobbab 5y ago
They got it wrong because most journalists were and are driven more by the hatred of Trump, than practicing actual journalism
cafard 5y ago
Well, the wish is father to the thought. Connoisseurs of this sort of thing may remember that St. Martin's Press chickened out at the last minute and did not publish a book stating that the Bush boys had had a business flying drugs in from South America. It sounded implausible to me, but apparently not if you were zealous enough. Anyway, the publisher decided that it didn't want to risk the outcome of the lawsuit that would certainly have been brought.
unanswered 5y ago
Important to note that this is an opinion piece. The New York times has not yet admitted to wrongdoing.
joenot443 5y ago
Check out the Talk page for the Steele Dossier on Wikipedia [1]. A bunch of wiki knights have taken it upon themselves to weasel-word the article to make it appear as if the dossier is still almost exclusively factual, which we now of course know it is not. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier
simonblack 5y ago
A simple lack of journalistic vigour in fact-checking. Many of us (and most of were no fans of Trump, either) could see that Russiagate was straight out absolutely laughable unsubstantiated bullshit. But the media had an agenda and so the US has spent five wasted years when that time, money and effort could have been spent on far more useful stuff.
mint2 5y ago
For those who take this headline as an indictment of the trump-Russia affair, keep in mind the article content actually goes on to explain that the many many non-dossier related instances of sketchiness was a big factor in some reporters taking the dossier too seriously. “ The first problem was this: There is no doubt that Mr. Trump had long curried Mr. Putin’s favor and that he and his family were eager to do business in Russia. Moreover, Mr. Mueller showed, and filed indictments that explained, how the Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign by targeting voter-registration systems, hacking into Democrats’ emails and taking advantage of Facebook and other social media companies to foment dissent and unrest. Mr. Trump’s choice of Paul Manafort to serve as his campaign chairman reinforced the idea that he was in the thrall of Russia. Those fears were borne out when a bipartisan Senate committee found Mr. Manafort to be a “grave counterintelligence threat” because of his ties to a Kremlin agent. So, given all those connections, it was easy to assume that the dossier’s allegations must also be true.” Likewise, the article does put the dossier reporting issues in perspective stating: ” None of this should minimize the endemic and willful deceptions of the right-wing press. From Fox News’s downplaying of the Covid-19 threat to OAN’s absurd defense of Mr. Trump’s lies about the election, conservative media outlets have built their own echo chamber, to the detriment of the country.”
- mint2 5y ago
  Haha downvotes for quoting the article, I guess some people wish it was just the title. Inconvenient facts, gotta cancel them!
musicale 5y ago
> They can also scrutinize whether, by focusing so heavily on the dossier, they helped distract public attention from Mr. Trump’s actual misconduct. Focusing on the questionable Steele dossier seemed to be a fairly effective anti-Trump strategy in the short run at least, but perhaps in hindsight the media can reflect on whether a focus on actual misconduct might have been a better approach overall.
noxer 5y ago
Most of this reads like a justification. Even the title "...get [it] so wrong" makes it sound like it just happened to them (the media). Trust in media in the US is at an all time low that didn't just happen. US mainstream media is utterly useless for any topic that's politicized somehow yet other topics don't suffer from this decline in usefulness. I might not be able to point a finger at the exact place where the problem lies but the problem is there and its not "just happening". A Justification why it "happened" is the exact opposite of what has to be done to fix this.

66 points by missinfo 5y ago

The saddest part are the brainwashed in discussions repeating talking points from the mainstream without thinking, and calling everyone else crazy. Then echoing themselves with podcasts and etc that repeat the same talking points and opinions No doubt the mainstream media keeps reaching new lows, supported by the fact checkers, and the big tech censorship But they will not learn anything... The current mainstream coverage of the Rittenhouse case is just surreal, and the opinion segments are disgusting

missinfo 5y ago

https://archive.ph/oOEXQ https://archive.ph/oOEXQ

ComputerGuru 5y ago

> That prompted a statement promising further examination from The Journal and something far more significant from The Washington Post’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee. She took a step that is almost unheard-of: removing large chunks of erroneous articles from 2017 and 2019, as well as an offending video. This is why archive.org and its ilk are now more important than ever before. We can’t allow history to be erased like this in the name of saving face.

scohesc 5y ago
I think that's a big downside of the internet compared to traditional media. It's so easy to just remove anything after the fact without any accountability. Don't worry, it's just WaPo rewriting history instead of issuing corrections and retractions officially with justification and reasonings. Nope, just remove it to save face. So disgusting.

crate_barre 5y ago

The media are like day traders. They can ride a topic up, and ride a topic down. They rode Trump up, and rode Trump down.

mc32 5y ago
I think that’s an insult to day traders. More apt would be pump and dump schemes ala Stratton oakmont —which is illegal. News orgs should be held to account when they do not partake in due diligence. They used to require multiple sources before embarking on exposes and when making inflammatory accusations. Today quoting an anonymous source on Twitter is sufficient basis for articles on policy, society, etc.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  It’s only an insult if you deny amorality. They are not pumping and dumping because they have no affinity towards seeing one stock go up. They will pick any stock that has price action. Let’s put it this way, if the US electorate was shrewd enough to have found Trump boring, it’s would not have been a stock they would have rode. They rode it because they could. The Steel Dossier was them riding the liberal Trump backlash movement. They just don’t give a shit, they are surfing our waves.
scohesc 5y ago
One only has to look at who and what owns these massive media conglomerates to realize these companies don't have our best interests at heart. They're all owned by massive, money-making individuals/corporations who just exist to make more money and to keep your eyeballs engaged. They have no "duty" to serve only the facts. Why would we serve just the facts and spend time doing investigative journalism, when we could just run with "anonymous sources" and treat _those_ sources as fact! If only the ones screaming "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were to slightly change their mantra to "freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"

sp0rk 5y ago

This opinion piece casually makes the very bold claim that the Steele Dossier has been disproven now, though the only evidence they seem to provide is that one of the informants has been arrested for lying to the FBI. I have not heard of any evidence that has directly contradicted the dossier, and in fact, I've seen a handful of news stories where other internet commenters have noticed that the timelines discovered from current investigations have matched up with pieces of the dossier. What parts have been disproven, exactly?

jesterman81 5y ago
There is ample evidence that shows the Dossier was faked and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It's just not presented with all the hysteria like the collusion story was. If they did they would show how much egg on the face actually exists.
mdswtchr 5y ago
Well the FBI believed the Steele dossier was fake when they used it to ask a FISA court judge for a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. This has been known since before the '20 election. So what parts have been disproven? None, the whole thing was a known fabrication from day one. The only real news now is that the authors of it are getting indicted in court and they'll be under oath when asked questions.
JacobThreeThree 5y ago
The NYT seems to think it's been discredited: >Now it has been largely discredited by two federal investigations and the indictment of a key source, leaving journalists to reckon how, in the heat of competition, so many were taken in so easily because the dossier seemed to confirm what they already suspected. Do you know something the NYT doesn't?
- js2 5y ago
  This is a guest essay. Your quote should be attributed to he writer, Bill Grueskin, not to the NYT. https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-How-to-submit-a-Guest-Essay-for-Opinion https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014809107-How-...

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

I don’t think this is an indictment of the media at all. I never saw this material discussed anywhere except in the middle of a forest of qualifications about it being “unconfirmed” or “unproven.” That’s the right way to cover it. No one reading those stories had any business thinking these allegations were proven. I doubt many did. It’s also intrinsically a lot harder for any US news organization to investigate these allegations (which concern private events in Russia!) than it is for them to investigate Gary Hart’s infidelity. It seems like the appropriate way to handle potentially significant but extremely difficult or impossible to verify allegations is to note that they are unverified. I suspect this isn’t going to be a popular opinion here bc people love to crap on “the media,” but imperfect as they are they are the best and frequently only source for important information as it is happening in real time.

RattleyCooper 5y ago
>No one reading those stories had any business thinking these allegations were proven. I doubt many did. Were you living under a rock? People were frothing at the mouths BEGGING for it to be true.
- huitzitziltzin 5y ago
  > Were you living under a rock? People were frothing at the mouths BEGGING for it to be true. I wasn't. They were begging for it to be true. But that is very different from (1.) these allegations actually being true, or (2.) anyone's believing they were true.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Some of it did turn out to be true. A few things were confirmed to be false, and quite a few of the more salacious ones remain unconfirmed either way and will probably remain that way. Considering the very guilty looking connections that the whole Trump orbit had with Russia, it's a wonder it didn't get even more traction. I mean, the president's son and campaign official sent an email to Trump's campaign manager inviting him to a meeting with a woman connected to the Kremlin. Multiple officials have gone to jail for Russia connected or Russian adjacent crimes. His national security advisor had secret unofficial meetings with Russia. He also accepted tens of thousands of dollars from a Russian government news organization to give a speech just a few months before becoming the national security advisor (he was even photographed sitting at the head table with Putin). There is nothing in the Steele Dossier that seems out of place, out of character, or even unlikely. Much of it is unconfirmed, but it all fits into the official and true narrative from what we know do far.

dfadsadsf 5y ago

Essentially after 2016 you should treat New York Times, Washington Post and other mainstream press as partisan actors. If they publish something negative about Biden, it's probably true. If it's something negative about Trump, republicans or anyone right of center, it's most likely partisan attack. The difference between op-ed and news is also blurry and frankly should be mostly ignored - selective reporting is a thing. It's a sad state of thing but here we are.

pstuart 5y ago
The same NYTimes that shilled the Iraq War for Bush? I have no party affiliation but vote Dem because I consider them to be the lesser of two evils. There's plenty to not like. I'm not a fan in general of Biden but have been less disappointed then I expected to be (and sometimes more). I could enumerate many of his failings (e.g., Hunter Biden's job was corrupt). I find it impossible to discuss anything negative about Trump with his supporters -- it's effectively a cult. I know I'll get downvotes for it but it's true, and incredibly frustrating. There's no opportunity to find consensus -- and no indication this will ever change.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- coolso 5y ago
  > The same NYTimes that shilled the Iraq War for Bush? Organizations can’t change at all within 20 years? Democrats have changed just as much in general. 3/4 of the stuff the blue check marks talk about on Twitter wasn’t even mentioned in passing in the early 00s.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    I think the Overton Window has shifted to the right. I've been explicit in saying that I am not a fan of the Democratic party. They are not above reproach. What's interesting is I never hear any complaints about the GOP from those on the right. Nada. Nothing. This is not whataboutism, it's that these complaints read as tribal warfare, not a search for the common good.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

I tend to defer to Marcy Wheeler when it comes to evaluating this stuff; she spends a lot of time actually looking at primary source material (court filings, etc.), AND she called out the dossier as likely Russian disinformation back in 2017. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/11/the-democrats-newfound-love-for-russian-intelligence-product/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/11/the-democrats-newfound... (2017) https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1460514005672419328 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1460514005672419328 https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/12/source-6a-john-durhams-twitter-charges/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/11/12/source-6a-john-durhams...

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Note that successful disinformation often mixes lies with truth.
- mdswtchr 5y ago
  The dossier is a lie, agreed, but you believe it is Russian misinformation? As in the Russians lied about having komprobat on Trump to make Trump look like he was a Russian agent? <stoner voice> That's like totally meta man </stoner voice> The dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, ghostwritten by her campaign, citing ethnic Russian-Americans employed by Clinton controlled think tanks.

mdswtchr 5y ago

This story is much larger than the Steele dossier, and it's a story that augurs a lot of trouble for the US. For starters, Trumpers have not forgotten and will not forget this. That's 30% of the US populations with an intense anger towards the whole Steele story. The Steele dossier was debunked years ago by anyone who followed the story with a modicum of balance - like the late Stephen F Cohen pointed out, how likely is it that Trump, a hotelier, wouldn't be fully aware that top suites at the top hotels in world capitals aren't bugged to high heaven? Why would a pee pee tape embarrass Trump, the personification of the old dictum: "No publicity is bad publicity"? Then, there is the issue of media credibility. Media credibility is already at all time low. We've known for years that the Steele dossier had been rejected because major media outlets realized it was probably bunk. This will further this decline in trust and cement American's media polarization. Also, Trump followers know there is a long list of other immoral/illegal/dishonest assaults on his presidency (no, not including the "Big Lie"). They are seething mad, and they are growing in numbers, recruiting even among ethnic minorities. On the other side, there is a 30% hardcore never-Trump group that has many reasons to be grieved by Trump. Trump's mistreatment of muslim countries was shocking (although, every muslim I know voted for Trump). The environment and pandering to Big Oil. I've tried to write this as balanced as possible because, I see a great danger from my vantage point that of a Latin American immigrant from a country that went through a savage four (or was it forty?) year civil war. It doesn't end well, and our current media should be sacrificed for peace and to air out the laundry. America, you've conjured a very nasty demon you have no experience with.

V__ 5y ago
> We've known for years that the Steele dossier had been rejected because major media outlets realized it was probably bunk. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this point. A lot of the dossier has been proven true, some hasn't been proven (yet?) and only one thing has been disproven: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456306559756156930 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456306559756156930 This whole Twitter thread by Seth Abramson is really informative: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456299800735870976 https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1456299800735870976

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

I wish we could get some journalistic analysis about 2016 news orgs overcovering Trump & insuring his primary win. Specifically, what they're going to change to insure they aren't so trivially manipulated next time.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
They manipulated themselves. "Let's boost publicity for this clown! It makes the Republicans look bad! He's smearing all the other primary candidates! We might even be able to make him win the primary! Plus, it's good for ratings." Yeah. Brilliant. (Though it probably would have worked if the Democrats had run anyone less flawed than Hillary.)

riddleronroof 5y ago

The fact that this was discussed in nyt is good. Hopefully through introspection, better processes emerge.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

The media occasionally sort of becomes unhinged and only talking to itself. It's hard to attribute why this happened but effectively the consequences is that journalistic ethics standards go out the window. This almost always results in people dying. This kind of behaviour is what starts wars or gets politicians assassinated. Since this is NYT I'll use an example from NYT. January 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-... Ok fair. NYtimes reporting that phones got tapped. Not exactly a surprise given snowden and how easy it is to get such data. Almost 100% this article is true. March 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-t... Wait... trump isn't offering the Nytimes their own article? Only months later? By the same author? Does Michael S Schmidt smoke a ton of weed and forgot he himself wrote the article explaining it? So the fact checkers come down and clearly show Schmidt his article saying he must retract? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-learned-obama-tapped-his-phon/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/16/donald-tru... Oh no. Fact checkers kind of got this one wrong. My point... it isn't about facts. Journalistic standard #1 is honesty. They clearly broke the most important rule. It goes further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory) It's a conspiracy theory! Not only is it false... This is the media falling from journalistic standards. Every single time in history where the media does this, people die. In the USA, the last major time the media did this, Mckinley got assassinated.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Why pick McKinley's assassination as your evidence, and not, say, the Spanish-American War? And one person (however important) getting shot isn't what most of us think of when you say "people die". And why pick that as the most recent example, instead of, say, the invasion of Iraq?
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >Why pick McKinley's assassination as your evidence, and not, say, the Spanish-American War? Another excellent example. Thanks! >And one person (however important) getting shot isn't what most of us think of when you say "people die". People die is general usage while I was providing a US example. >And why pick that as the most recent example, instead of, say, the invasion of Iraq? Interesting? I actually dont believe I've seen the news blamed for that invasion. Typically the reasoning is economic. I wish to know more!

mint2 5y ago

The Russian government was working to help trump win, that is a fact, and Trump welcomed it. Trump then showed he was at best trivially manipulated by Putin as president and his campaign manager had literally been giving Russia polling data. Obsessing over the Russia dossier which wasn’t the basis for this investigation and discounting the whole trump Russia thing is like saying sequoia National forest doesn’t exist because one of the trees turned out to be a cell tower. Edit: many downvotes without logical replies, actually without any replies at the moment, shows this comment is making people experience inconvenient truths, which they must cancel. Long live the cancel culture, am I right?

_-david-_ 5y ago
>Obsessing over the Russia dossier which wasn’t the basis for this investigation Are you sure about that? I read they couldn't have gotten a FISA warrant without it.
Jtype 5y ago
You provide no proof or evidence for any of your claims, that's why you have been downvoted. Being downvoted for adding nothing to the discussion is not cancel culture, nobody is offended at what you wrote and no one is trying to remove it from the web or ban you from the platform. I'm hoping that this is sarcasm that went over my head.
- mint2 5y ago
  I provided no proof because the facts I stated are well known, but more importantly this article itself points out Russia interference in the election and various trump Russia connections that are unrelated to the dossier. It would be weird to reiterating the article we all read, we all read it right? In fact, to continue my analogy, the article itself explains that the rest of the forest is a big factor of why some journalists reported like the cell tower was a tree. So No, I don’t need to provide support of statements that the article we are commenting on already supports. It’s clear those statements are inconvenient to people so they are downvoting and not even reading the article

baobbab 5y ago

They got it wrong because most journalists were and are driven more by the hatred of Trump, than practicing actual journalism

cafard 5y ago

Well, the wish is father to the thought. Connoisseurs of this sort of thing may remember that St. Martin's Press chickened out at the last minute and did not publish a book stating that the Bush boys had had a business flying drugs in from South America. It sounded implausible to me, but apparently not if you were zealous enough. Anyway, the publisher decided that it didn't want to risk the outcome of the lawsuit that would certainly have been brought.

unanswered 5y ago

Important to note that this is an opinion piece. The New York times has not yet admitted to wrongdoing.

joenot443 5y ago

Check out the Talk page for the Steele Dossier on Wikipedia [1]. A bunch of wiki knights have taken it upon themselves to weasel-word the article to make it appear as if the dossier is still almost exclusively factual, which we now of course know it is not. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier

simonblack 5y ago

A simple lack of journalistic vigour in fact-checking. Many of us (and most of were no fans of Trump, either) could see that Russiagate was straight out absolutely laughable unsubstantiated bullshit. But the media had an agenda and so the US has spent five wasted years when that time, money and effort could have been spent on far more useful stuff.

mint2 5y ago

For those who take this headline as an indictment of the trump-Russia affair, keep in mind the article content actually goes on to explain that the many many non-dossier related instances of sketchiness was a big factor in some reporters taking the dossier too seriously. “ The first problem was this: There is no doubt that Mr. Trump had long curried Mr. Putin’s favor and that he and his family were eager to do business in Russia. Moreover, Mr. Mueller showed, and filed indictments that explained, how the Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign by targeting voter-registration systems, hacking into Democrats’ emails and taking advantage of Facebook and other social media companies to foment dissent and unrest. Mr. Trump’s choice of Paul Manafort to serve as his campaign chairman reinforced the idea that he was in the thrall of Russia. Those fears were borne out when a bipartisan Senate committee found Mr. Manafort to be a “grave counterintelligence threat” because of his ties to a Kremlin agent. So, given all those connections, it was easy to assume that the dossier’s allegations must also be true.” Likewise, the article does put the dossier reporting issues in perspective stating: ” None of this should minimize the endemic and willful deceptions of the right-wing press. From Fox News’s downplaying of the Covid-19 threat to OAN’s absurd defense of Mr. Trump’s lies about the election, conservative media outlets have built their own echo chamber, to the detriment of the country.”

mint2 5y ago
Haha downvotes for quoting the article, I guess some people wish it was just the title. Inconvenient facts, gotta cancel them!

musicale 5y ago

> They can also scrutinize whether, by focusing so heavily on the dossier, they helped distract public attention from Mr. Trump’s actual misconduct. Focusing on the questionable Steele dossier seemed to be a fairly effective anti-Trump strategy in the short run at least, but perhaps in hindsight the media can reflect on whether a focus on actual misconduct might have been a better approach overall.

noxer 5y ago

Most of this reads like a justification. Even the title "...get [it] so wrong" makes it sound like it just happened to them (the media). Trust in media in the US is at an all time low that didn't just happen. US mainstream media is utterly useless for any topic that's politicized somehow yet other topics don't suffer from this decline in usefulness. I might not be able to point a finger at the exact place where the problem lies but the problem is there and its not "just happening". A Justification why it "happened" is the exact opposite of what has to be done to fix this.