clinton cash got a lot of traction even though the factual errors and lies were flaming obvious. I'll never forget the irresponsible NYT headline "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" which turned out to be BS. It was surreal to read the summary of that article which threw cold water on the actual headline. To this day, Republicans on social media share that article as if it proves something ( solely because of the headline).

JHan

(10,173 posts)

2. good share triron, important context for the editorial decision which was made.

Reply to triron (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2018, 04:02 PM

Oct 2018

If it were Clinton-oriented, Bacquet wouldn't have had the same reservations I suspect.

(yeah I'm not his biggest fan)

triron

(22,007 posts)

4. knr

Reply to triron (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2018, 05:15 PM

Oct 2018

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

5. The same reason the Times sat on a story in 2004

Reply to triron (Original post)

Tue Oct 9, 2018, 05:53 PM

Oct 2018

In 2004, the Times had the story on the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretaps well in advance of the general election. The Times sat on the story until December 16, 2004, when the election was safely over and Bush had been re-elected. The reason was that the Times didn't want to affect or influence the election outcome, which is exactly what the Times did, just not in the way that publishing the story would have affected the election.

In 14 years, the Times has learned nothing about its obligations and responsibilities.

Reply to this discussion