This will prove to be a difficult process, considering the amount of media time spent obsessing over Steele dossier..
Follow the major news The Washington Post published this article last week The New York Times was making major changes in its coverage of Trump’s collusion scandal. They are also looking at the role of the media in the growing embarrassment. The news media is having difficulty coming to terms with its role and making public corrections.
There have been tremors across the media industry since the recent developments in the Durham investigation that led to Igor Danchenko’s indictment. Danchenko’s charges stem from delivering false testimony to the FBI, and it reveals him as the primary individual supplying the contents of the infamous Steele dossier. This undermines the claims that another man — Sergei Millinian -9 had been the main source of information, and here is where the problems expand for the news outlets.
Millinian was thought to have been an external operative. A foreign businessman, Millinian had business relations involving Donald Trump. This allowed him to gain access to his political circle. Danchenko being confirmed as this source has established that the Hillary Clinton campaign was the source of the alleged information. Fusion GPS fed the content to Danchenko, who then supplied Steele. This means that the Durham investigation exposes the document as a fabulist invention for the second consecutive time. There are many repercussions.
They are also being stung by their continued support of this source over years of media coverage. Many news organizations that are the most powerful confirmed Millinian as the source of the dossier. However, it has been revealed that they were either willingly corrupted and/or inept throughout this reporting. Two of the main articles about the subject have been significantly modified by the Post to the point that it decided to republish them. This is a rare decision. Twelve other articles in its coverage were also changed.
The Times is less transparent. Bill Grueskin, in his first piece, examines this latest development. But the depth of reflection is missing. The Times Having been at the forefront of the reporting, and two of the reporters from that piece — Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo — were part of the teaPulitzer Prize awarded to m journalists of the Times, the Post and other media outlets for reporting on the dossier.
Grueskin touches on many aspects that motivated the media to pursue the story. But there was plenty more to motivate the press. The denials of a serial liar, whom they called Trump, were seen as confirmation. Reporters were given praise and awards, as well as ratings and distribution.
Then, there was the change in acceptable standards that kept the story going; rather than verifying what was said, evidence lacking was taken as evidence. Rachael maddow is a famous speaker, “Some elements of the dossier have been verified. A number remain neither verified nor proven false, but none so far have been publicly disproven.”
However, the New York Times takes a long time to correct and address its role. Grueskin doesn’t want to be the main conduit for information that falls under the purview of the paper. As he calls on outlets to come to terms with their coverage over the years, he opens his piece mentioning how BuzzFeed had been the outlet to print out Steele’s dossier in full. Ben Smith is now employed at the Times. He was present at BuzzFeed when that decision was made. Ben Smith would be the first to the front if the paper were interested in self reflection. Ben, however, remains silent about the subject. Instead, the paper refers the printing of dossiers as an outlet that was conducted by another company, and not their own.
The Times seems to be more concerned with putting guilt on other people’s desks. In another piece Bret Stephens gives passing mention to the media looking bad as a result of these revelations — linking to the Washington Post rewrites and not to any NYT works — but then places the focus on the federal cops for this debacle.
Put media criticism aside for a bit. What this indictment further exposes is that James Comey’s F.B.I. It was a Bureau of Dirty Tricks that was only mitigated by its own incompetence.
It is weak in many areas. It is laughable to blame the FBI. If the FBI was acting in such a horrible manner, how could the media not have covered the execution of these dirty tricks? They were clearly so inept, how could they have managed to avoid scrutiny from the media? It is not hard to understand why. Without media consent, the agency couldn’t have sent any details about this dossier and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
After submitting the dossier to journalists, the initial FISA warrant was obtained. The reporters then provided corroboration. After verifying Millinian as the source, the press began to investigate. BuzzFeed printed the contents after being fed the FBI’s information. This matter was a joint investigation between the FBI and the press. They worked for many years to prove that the fraudulent document was legitimate.
This tips off how the Times wants to approach this new proof of Steele’s infamous fable. Their preferred route is deflection, despite having their fingerprints all over the document that they are now trying to incriminate. The trophy was also covered in smudges from the Pulitzer committee, which they used to report on the proven fraud.
About Post Author
