3 ms·
Can you rephrase your question? What came of these investigations is that a lot of people read them and learned something, which is the primary goal of most jou
by burkaman 5y ago
Can you rephrase your question? What came of these investigations is that a lot of people read them and learned something, which is the primary goal of most journalists. Some organizations, like ProPublica, explicitly focus on "impact", but most do not, and I think impact is just one of many things the Pulitzer judges consider.
- 99_00 5y agoIs what they learned factual? Because none of the supposed wrong doings was judged wrong by any court.
- burkaman 4y agoI mean if you don't trust Pulitzer-winning reporters then you shouldn't trust anonymous internet commenters, but since asked: yes, it was factual. Of the three investigations you picked, the first was about tax "dodging" which is not necessarily illegal. From the second investigation, I'll pull one quote for you: > Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to eight federal crimes, including tax evasion and making false statements to a bank, capping a monthslong investigation into his business dealings and work as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. For the president, it opens up a perilous new legal front. For the third investigation on Russian interference, there are a whole pile of convictions you can look up if you're interested. I think Paul Manafort and Roger Stone are the biggest names you may be familiar with.