When The New York Times Helped Trump By Putting The Brakes On The Russian Hacking Story

[deminks]

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/17/when-new-york-times-helped-trump-putting-brakes-russian-hacking-story/215027

Talk about strange bedfellows joining forces to produce an unlikely media alliance.

That’s what happened when The New York Times reported on October 31, 2016, that FBI officials had not been able to uncover any evidence that Russian operatives, through allegedly hacking Democratic emails, were trying to help elect Donald Trump.

“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” read the October 31 Times headline which relied on unnamed “law enforcement officials.”

Acting as an almost unofficial time-out, and one that came with the Times’ seal of approval, the article helped put the media brakes on the unfolding Russian hacking story; the same Russian hacking story that has now morphed into a full-scale Trump scandal.

The message on October 31 from the Times’ sources was unmistakable: There’s no conclusive connection between Trump and the Russians, and the Russians’ efforts were “aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.” (Question: How do you not pick sides in a two-person election if you only undermine one of the candidates, the way Russian hackers only undermined the Democrat?)

(snip)

However, to suggest the Times’ influential October 31 report “hasn’t aged well,” as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes recently put it, may be an understatement, as the unfolding hacking scandal continues to gain momentum and more evidence tumbles out regarding claims that Russians were trying to help Trump. (Hayes also correctly recalled that "At the same time the FBI was leaking like a sieve about Clinton, people around it went out of their way to dampen the Putin talk.&quot

(end snip)

[rainy]

1. Who is their real boss? Remember

when they sat on the story of W being wired during a debate? W kept saying wait a minute even though his light was still green and no one was talking to him.

There are so many more examples of them sitting on stories that benefit republicans.

[JHan]

2. There was a real push to refute any claims of Russian connections to the Trump camp at the time.

I also remember David Corn treated as something of a joke by some pundits and columnists. After the election, when they couldn't ignore the stench anymore, some of these same pundits and publications ran with disingenuous headlines asking why the WH didn't say more about the hacking when the WH released a statement since Oct. pointing to Russian mischief in our elections. It was largely ignored or dismissed by the press because, as usual, any scandal involving Trump barely survives a week, two weeks for the most, and then the press is on to the newest outrage.