All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Today in Fake News

The New York Times won today's Foolitzer Prize.



First the story was:
McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows
An email sent during the transition by President Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, K.T. McFarland, appears to contradict the testimony she gave to Congress over the summer about contacts between the Russian ambassador and Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Ms. McFarland had told lawmakers that she did not discuss or know anything about interactions between Sergey I. Kislyak, who had been Moscow’s ambassador to the United States, and Mr. Flynn, according to Senate documents.
But emails obtained by The New York Times appear to undermine those statements. In a Dec. 29 message about newly imposed Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference, Ms. McFarland, then serving on Mr. Trump’s transition team, told another transition official that Mr. Flynn would be talking to the Russian ambassador that evening.
The discrepancy is likely to add to mounting troubles for the White House that stem from Mr. Flynn’s interactions with Russian officials. He pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to F.B.I. agents about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak about the sanctions.
But now the headline reads:
McFarland’s Testimony About Russia Contacts Is Questioned
And the Washington Examiner reported:
These four paragraphs have been removed entirely from the Times' report. The story’s core message has also been softened considerably.
Where the headline once declared that "McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts," the story now reads, “A leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned on Monday whether a high-ranking official in Donald J. Trump’s transition team had been deceptive over the summer about her knowledge of discussions between Michael T. Flynn ...”
The report, which was once so sure of itself, now eases away by saying McFarland “might have given ‘false testimony’ in her answers.”
There are no editor’s notes drawing attention to the story’s many changes.
The story is by Michael S. Schmidt and Sharon Lafraniere.

This is all based on a press release from Democratic Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey:
“Recent developments suggest that Ms. McFarland gave false testimony to the United States Senate on a matter as significant as communications between the Russian government and the Trump transition team. 
“If this is the case, this is an alarming development, and another example of a pattern of deception on the part of Trump’s closest associates regarding their connections and communications to Russian government officials.”
Even Booker did not say, "McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts."

He said only "recent developments suggest that."

Like the Pulitzer, the Foolitzer's goal is to promote excellence in journalism.

Not by praising the best but by shaming the worst.

@@@

Please enjoy my two books about the press and how it missed the rise of Donald Trump.

The first was "Trump the Press," which covered his nomination.

The second was "Trump the Establishment," which covered his election.

To order autographed copies, write DonSurber@GMail.com.

Friend me on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

As always, Make America Great Again.

9 comments:

  1. Joe Foolitzer was a tabloid hack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Foolitzer Prize! Don shoots! He SCORES! BIGLY!

    Now, speaking of Pulitzer Prizes, see:
    https://www.amazon.com/How-win-Pullet-Surprise-pleasures/dp/0531098745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512528760&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+win+a+pullet+surprise

    ReplyDelete
  3. Corey Booker shouldn't question anyone's integrity.

    At the rate the media are going, we are going to need multiple Foolitzers each day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Schlongy, two thumbs up. New Joisey? The Mafia Capital Of The World? Blow me, "Senator."

      Delete
  4. Define worst, if the LSM were fish, the worst of them would be like Peter's catch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is the NYTs taking their lead from their liberal sources (the only kind that count). You can always tell when Bookers is lying or hating because his lips are moving.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder whether these Journalists In Name Only faint when they read Don’s missives about their journalistic shortcomings.

    I seem to recall that, when you get a letter from the Head Beagle, you always faint.

    ReplyDelete