Talking to Michael Barbaro on the Times’s “The Daily” podcast, Baquet refused to in any way condemn a recent Times article that was widely and appropriately cited as a canonical example of bothesidesism, and instead reiterated that Times reporters will not be “taking sides” -- even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie.
An article about how Democrats and Republicans have turned themselves “upside-down” when it comes to their views of John Bolton is a master class in false equivalence. Democrats don't suddenly like him, they just believe hist testimony could help arrive at the truth.
At a time when too many political reporters choose maintaining access over pushing back, NPR's Mary Louise Kelly asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tough questions and called him out when he answered with lies. Then after he summoned her to his office and yelled at her, she went public.
Too many elite journalists have kept a distance from the issues Schiff raised, preferring to simply present two sides, sometimes even falsely equated. So his words made them uncomfortable. And they damned near ignored him.
We heard a compelling, evidence-packed story Wednesday about how Trump's sordid plot played out step by step by step. If Trump’s team simply responds with invective and shrugs, will news organizations realize that's not a real rebuttal?
Here's the story the mainstream media didn't tell you: The first real day of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump was an epic exercise in raw political power. Members of the Trump team, effectively led by Mitch McConnell, put forth no plausible arguments to support their position. But they didn’t have to. Because they had the votes.
A profoundly weak front-runner should be the ultimate in big game for our top political reporters. But instead, mainstream journalists in the best positions to demand answers – during sit-down interviews and televised debates – have been remarkably soft on Joe Biden.
Rather than rise to CNN’s bait and argue about who is tougher and more aggressive, the candidates – collectively, and without exception – laid out a compelling case against rash U.S. intervention and going to war under false pretenses or without congressional approval.
Three reporters publicly announced five unanswered questions they intend to explore, with the ultimate goal of determining whether Trump is “exposed to problems — such as struggling properties or debts coming due — that would put private pressure on a man with immense public power.”
Trump can say whatever he wants and he still gets the kind of coverage normal presidents get when they say something controversial, rather than the coverage that a compulsively lying president ought to get when he says something that’s obviously made up.
Official explanations have thus far been insufficient and lacking in credibility. There’s no evidence of a normal deliberative process. Reporting suggests Trump made his decisions impulsively, rather than strategically. Other than Trump supporters, pretty much everyone agrees this was a very bad, inflammatory decision. And he had an obvious ulterior motive.