Oh, So That's Why The New York Times Didn't Cover Latest Durham Bombshell

https://townhall.com ^ | 15 FEBRUARY 2022 | Spencer Brown

[Red Badger]

IOW, OUR READERS ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND......................

[Demiurge2]

It took the NYT a whole weekend to come up with a rationalization that the spying evidence is a nothingburger. Doesn’t look good for them...

[blackdog]

Whistling past the Gray-Yard. ;)

[Red Badger]

They, along with WaPo AND THE REST OF THE DINOSAUR MEDIA, WILL BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING LIKE A TODDLER IN A TANTRUM TO THE TRUTH..................

[pepsi_junkie]

IOW, OUR READERS ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND......................

Well, you have to admit, people who actually believe and rely on the NY Times for their information are pretty dumb. So it's not a lie...

[z3n]

In other words, there is no way to spin this one and even sound remotely intelligent, or credible.

...and they have done a LOT to strain credibility over recent years, but when most of your readers get your winks and nudges, it’s all good.

You know this is bad if they have no spin at all. Just silence

[blackdog]

Back to that notion that the election of Trump called for a "quality control" correction by the media and political ruling classes. Trump is an existential threat to their ongoing enterprises.

Machine programs and algorithms along with ballot harvesting will be sufficient to maintain the status quo for the elites and Beltway ruling class going into future elections.

[joshua c]

i agree

i think they hit the nail on the head

[Steve_Seattle]

"The revelations, according to national security and legal policy correspondent Charlie Savage, "tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time."

So, because readers might need to think about what they're consuming from a news outlet rather than just uncritically accepting what an outlet tells them at face value, according to Savage, means "raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims."

Not only does this insult the intelligence of the readers, it is a lie. The NYT would NEVER hesitate to publish any anti-Trump material, no matter how complex it was. Rather, they would simplify it, even lie about it, to present Trump in the worst light possible.

[virgil]

Headline - US Media Stinks on Ice

[kiryandil]

"All the News That's Print To Fit"

[Steve_Seattle]

I was actually thinking that the MSM were sitting on this for exactly that reason: they were scrambling to think of a way to spin it for damage control, or to rationalize not covering it at all.

[1Old Pro]

In a just world this would be fine and I’d simply accept them publishing an easy to understand photo of Hillary in cuffs marching off to prison.

[Tell It Right]

Birds that poop on newspapers are smarter than the NYT.

[ALX]

The question asked during the Press briefing yesterday referred to monitoring internet searches of Trump and his White House.

This was much more than that, but i expect that to become part of the talking points. Not sure who thinks these people are going to have a revelation, but parts of the right seem to need validation from these corrupt clowns masquerading as journalists….it ain’t happening

[RatRipper]

So what was The Times' excuse? The revelations, according to national security and legal policy correspondent Charlie Savage, "tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time."

But, but "progressives" are the most intelligent, enlightened people on the planet, probably the universe. It would be child's play for them to read and comprehend. If you don't believe me, just ask one of them. . . . /sarc

[Red Badger]

Trump is an existential threat to their ongoing enterprises.

Trump is an existential threat to their ongoing TREASONOUS, CRIMINAL enterprises and freedom ..................

[1Old Pro]

But they’ll print the accountant withdrawal story which is much more complicated because they can deceptively spin that as a negative.

[ETCM]

"tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time."

So they couldn't manage the logical gymnastics required to contort the story into anything other than "Trump was right, he was spied on by Hillary, Obama and the FBI". So they spiked the story.