The Press Continues Discrediting Themselves as The New York Times Continues to Churn Collusion Talk Absent Any Substance

 

 

The press is racing with a NY Times piece that repeats all the errors of the past two years of hysteria.

A new report came out from the New York Times that members of the Robert Mueller investigation team who helped craft the collusion report are upset with Attorney General Bill Barr. The claim in the alarmist piece is that these members state there is more evidence in the actual report, and Barr failed to reveal these details in his four-page cover letter released two weeks ago. Except — this new report from the Times is littered with the very actions that have landed the press in trouble over this entire story.

The release of the Mueller Report has been about as devastating for the media complex in this country as anything could regarding credibility. Two years of supposition and innuendo reporting has led to a monumental bust. The report proved there was no substantial basis to the collusion narrative, and today the New York Times only continues that practice.

The media currently is in full throat over an article the Times released last night, implying that the Mueller team has a cadre of investigators upset at Attorney General Bill Barr, and stating that his now debated cover letter of the report is not accurate. The press is giddy right now with the concept that the full Mueller report will actually contain some substance to bail out the 2 years of collective slander.

Except this new “revelation” does nothing to bolster that claim, and in fact, it perpetuates the very practices that got the press in this trouble all along. It is almost as if the media refuse to learn any lessons from their methods. The Times piece resorts to the same tactics we have become inured to; reliance upon unverifiable sourcing, and delivering content that is not only dubious in nature but light in actual needle-moving details. Just behold the fog in their opening paragraph:

Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

There are so many veils in this introduction to actually qualify as a ski mask. Anonymous investigators told unknown associates about unrevealed findings, supposedly based on comments by unnamed officials or randomly alluded to “others”. Any editor looking over this copy and allowing it to run as-is needs to be questioned on their own standards.

A collection of random people have indicated there could be something more, and the media is racing around today about a “bombshell” report in The Times. That nobody is looking critically at this non-report is all that is needed to see how these journalists have relied on wishcasting for years.

Reading down in the article it becomes amusing how little basis of ANYthing there is in arriving at today’s clarion announcement. It could be looked at almost as if The Times was striving to disprove its own exclusive:

  • The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president.
  • The report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation.
  • It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public.
  • It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team.
    (emphasis mine)

So the New York Times cannot tell us who said this, cannot tell us why they feel this way, cannot tell us what they are disputing, cannot tell us what was said at the DOJ, and cannot say how many are saying what is supposedly being said. Yet they run this article, and the collective media is running with the narrative.

The other aspect that is not properly recognized is that AG Barr has been routinely accused of obfuscation in these types of claims. Since the release of the Mueller report, numerous outlets have declared that Barr’s letter providing an overview does not accurately represent the contents of the report. There have been suggestions that he has intentionally misled on the contents, and is trying to fully excuse the President of wrongdoing when there is proof otherwise in the report.

The implication in all of this is that Barr is operating as an oblivious character in this production. How can the Attorney General be saying things that are so easily contradicted by the actual report? For these accusations to hold up it would mean that Barr is operating with the expectation the full report will never be released, and the Democrats and the journalists calling for the report to be released are the heroes, demanding the truth come out.

These dramatics are dissolved by one simple fact; Barr is currently working to release the report. It is due to arrive any time now in the coming weeks. Further, working with Barr on preparing the report for release is Robert Mueller himself. A question no one in the press is capable of asking: Why would AG Barr put out contradictory information about a report that is about to be released in a matter of days? It makes zero sense, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by him supposedly doing this.

So here is the New York Times, continuing the actions of the past two years that has landed the media in trouble. This is an unsourced report, that delivers no real content, and is choked with supposition which it claims proves something that is not only unsupported by evidence, but withers under the application of common sense. And the balance of the press corps is running around repeating the baseless claims.

This goes to show that after all of this time experiencing a never-ending series of self-created disasters the press has not learned a single lesson.