Most of Us Do Not Recognize How Hard the Corrupt Supreme Court Republican Majority, the "New York Times", & so Many Others Are Working to Elect Donald Trump
Most of Us Do Not Recognize How Hard the Corrupt Supreme Court Republican Majority, the "New York Times", & so Many Others Are Working to Elect Donald Trump
The basic story about Trump is his gross incompetence, psychiatric unfitness, and eager embodiment of our long tradition of Know Nothingism. But the whole corporate media ecology, including the paper of record, rests on selling ads, and that requires meta-balance, even when that isn't remotely realistic.
Very good points criticizing the NYT reporting and choice of external opinion pieces. Trump and Vance any utterance is reported and amplified, but Harris statements don´t get the same treatment. The editorial endorsing Harris is not sufficient to offset that.
There was NO disgraceful handling of 'sensitive' emails by HRC.
In sum total, there were merely THREE (highly non-standard) classification marks on anything, and all three were marked with a (c) in the body of the text (not at the top of the page, indicating the classifying authority and time limitations if any, as IS the standard for actual classified materials-- along with a paragraph marker showing where the classified information is cited). Under questioning, Comey admitted that the absence of such standard markings failed to alert the recipient of the classified status who was thereby not on notice.
The 'confidential' ('c') classification is the lowest level of classification, and it can be sent in the regular mails using the USPS. Moreover, one of the (c) markings was erroneous, because by then the planned call being referenced had occurred and so the (c) aspect was expired.
There were matters that were later classified, which were not classified at that time. And the claimed offending information in her emails was originated by State Dept. staff, only 'sent' by her by her responses to those messages (where the original message was copied in line with her reply). Later, an extensive Inspector General investigation of about 12 State Dept. officials who had sent her those messages determined that none of them had committed any national security harm or crime.
Nate Silver, their own expert, was giving Trump a one-third chance of winning in 2016. Baquet is pathetic -- and actually in line with a long history of poor performance by The Gray Lady. As used to be well documented by LOOT: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lies+of+our+times%22+archive
Personally speaking, the other thing that is getting buried due to our reigning journalistic "balance" conventions is basic reporting on one-person, one-vote. If not for our shameless flouting of that elementary standard, Trump would be a has-been peddling tacky condos in Atlantic City.
Must.... Preserve..... Access....
The basic story about Trump is his gross incompetence, psychiatric unfitness, and eager embodiment of our long tradition of Know Nothingism. But the whole corporate media ecology, including the paper of record, rests on selling ads, and that requires meta-balance, even when that isn't remotely realistic.
Very good points criticizing the NYT reporting and choice of external opinion pieces. Trump and Vance any utterance is reported and amplified, but Harris statements don´t get the same treatment. The editorial endorsing Harris is not sufficient to offset that.
However awful Trump is it is the job of the NYT to report important
and relevant news. Yes Jack Smith's claims should be reported and
yes Hilary's disgraceful handling of sensitive emails should have been
reported. Election prospects and polling ought to be immaterial.
There was NO disgraceful handling of 'sensitive' emails by HRC.
In sum total, there were merely THREE (highly non-standard) classification marks on anything, and all three were marked with a (c) in the body of the text (not at the top of the page, indicating the classifying authority and time limitations if any, as IS the standard for actual classified materials-- along with a paragraph marker showing where the classified information is cited). Under questioning, Comey admitted that the absence of such standard markings failed to alert the recipient of the classified status who was thereby not on notice.
The 'confidential' ('c') classification is the lowest level of classification, and it can be sent in the regular mails using the USPS. Moreover, one of the (c) markings was erroneous, because by then the planned call being referenced had occurred and so the (c) aspect was expired.
There were matters that were later classified, which were not classified at that time. And the claimed offending information in her emails was originated by State Dept. staff, only 'sent' by her by her responses to those messages (where the original message was copied in line with her reply). Later, an extensive Inspector General investigation of about 12 State Dept. officials who had sent her those messages determined that none of them had committed any national security harm or crime.
tDrumpf/Vance pronouncements get amplified.
Biden/Kamala's get fact checked.
Nate Silver, their own expert, was giving Trump a one-third chance of winning in 2016. Baquet is pathetic -- and actually in line with a long history of poor performance by The Gray Lady. As used to be well documented by LOOT: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lies+of+our+times%22+archive
Personally speaking, the other thing that is getting buried due to our reigning journalistic "balance" conventions is basic reporting on one-person, one-vote. If not for our shameless flouting of that elementary standard, Trump would be a has-been peddling tacky condos in Atlantic City.