Some Examples of NYTs Faux Pas’

DAILY CALLER zeroes in on the first claim:

The New York Times has issued an absurdly written correction to a story about President Trump and Russian meddling.

White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.

[….]

Haberman’s story repeated a claim liberals began circulating following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October on the Russian influence campaign. Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.

The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.

The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview in May where she again repeated the phrase. Certainly, none of the other agencies disagreed on the record, but that’s to be expected if they didn’t conduct a separate analysis…..

(See also THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

MY PAST POSTS ON THE MATTER:

More on the second claim regarding the Steele Dossier being Russian propaganda — even though it was touted for over 2-years in the pages of the NYT:

Who knew? …On Saturday, the New York Times published a story about how the “Mueller Report [was] likely to renew scrutiny of the Steele Dossier.” The Times reports that the dossier’s contents could even have been a Russian disinformation operation aimed at then-candidate Trump. Which comes as no surprise to conservatives who have been following the story.

Remember, the Steele dossier came about because the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm, which then hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then paid a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who leaned on contacts close to the Kremlin to get information that was used in the preparation of the dossier.

Is it any wonder that those Russians, who wanted to sow discord in the United States, would jump at the opportunity to provide misinformation, knowing that the media would eat it up?

(THE BLAZE)

ALSO (hat-tip RED STATE):

As it turns out, back in January 2018, New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the lead reporter on this story, was a member of a panel that somewhat resembled the Star Wars cantina scene at the International Spy Museum titled “Unpacking the Russia Story with the Experts Who Have Covered It.” The video is cued up to the appropriate cut for your convenience:

And regarding the New York Times correction to a story about Trump’s tax plan:

The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.

The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.

Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.

“Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but The New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point,” Freeman wrote on Feb. 27. “Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade The Times to reconsider?”

Well, The Times did reconsider — but it may still not be 100 percent accurate…..

(FOX NEWS)


A FEW MORE


The New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction to its story about another decades-old accusation of sexual misconduct against US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — because it failed to tell readers that the alleged victim doesn’t even remember the incident.

As The Post reported in its front-page story Monday, the Times piece omitted that crucial fact.

The Times article had been adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The newspaper claimed that Max Stier, a former classmate of the justice years ago at Yale University, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down at a party, and his friends then pushed his penis into the hands of a female student….

(NY POST | See also the NEW YORK INTELLIGENCER)

5 Biggest Screw-Ups by The New York Times So Far This Year

  1. Corrects Claim That 17 Intel Agencies ‘Agree’ on Russia
  2. Mistakes Parody Twitter Account for North Korea’s Official One
  3. Flubs Story on Food Stamps and Soda—Twice
  4. Editor Forced to Correct Statement on Attorney General
  5. Corrects Editorial Attacking Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory

(DAILY SIGNAL)

The New York Times was forced to issue four corrections to a failed hit piece against Foundation for Defense of Democracies founder Mark Dubowitz.

Last week, the Times published a piece aimed at portraying Dubowitz as corrupt, unethical, and incompetent because he opposed former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and applauded President Donald Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the horrendous pact.

The embarrassing article falsely claimed that a GOP donor with financial ties to the United Arab Emirates gave FDD $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference; that Dubowitz “paid himself” twice as much as others who head think tanks; that Dubowitz created his own salary to far exceed his peers in the industry; and that the FDD is connected to Israel’s Likud Party.

Every single one of those claims is completely false, and the Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction admitting that its error-ridden piece had to be updated.

As noted by the correction, here’s the truth: Dubowitz’s compensation is determined by a board of directors, meaning he doesn’t arbitrarily create his own salary; his annual salary is almost identical with other think tank leaders; the FDD is not directly tied to the Likud Party in any way; and GOP donor Elliott Broidy gave $360,000 for the FDD conference, not $2.7 million….

These weren’t minor errors where someone’s name was misspelled or the date of an event was wrong. This was intended to be a disgusting, salacious, hit piece against Dubowitz because he gave credit to Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal.

The piece is uniquely embarrassing because of the volume of the embarrassing errors and how easy it should have been for editors to catch the erroneous claims.

In fact, the errors are so egregious it appears like the Times deliberately inflated figures and peddled falsehoods to ramp up the heat on Debowitz….

(I LOVE MY FREEDOM)

ETC., ETC., ETC….

The Democrat’s Selective Outrage On Intelligence

UPDATE! via THE DAILY CALLER and the NYTs:

The New York Times issued a correction Thursday on an article that incorrectly claimed all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that “Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get [Trump] elected.”

[….]

Former candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim in late May that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed “that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

Former FBI Director James Comey refuted this false claim in a congressional hearing in May, stating that the assessment was only from the NSA, FBI and the CIA.

The Daily Caller News Foundation published a fact-check June 1 that rated Clinton’s claim as “False.”

Larry Elder discusses in the following clips some of the hypocritical positions the Democrats have in regard to accepting or rejecting intelligent agencies positions — selective outrage in other words. The above audio includes a partial interview with Ed Klein as well (interview begins at the 6:28 mark). Mr. Klein’s books and more can be found here: http://edwardklein.com/

I believe this line about 17-intelligence agencies saying the “Russians” did it is still the same evidence as when I posted this: “NO, 17-U.S. AGENCIES DID NOT SAY RUSSIA HACKED DEM E-MAILS.”

But many issues have still negated the narrative by the Democrats in this regard…see:

CIA vs FBI – Russia and the U.S. Election
The Hillary Campaign and the DNC Refused FBI Help

The bottom line is that even if the Russian’s have an involvement, it didn’t change the outcome of the election. Whatsoever. And the leaks from Podesta’s emails and the DNC were from insiders, not Russians.

Via CNSNEWS:

“Hold on a minute! CNN didn’t invent this,” said Camerota. “As you know, there were a score of intelligence agencies — seventeen of them — that concluded that Russia had hacked and meddled in our election.”

King replied, “Alisyn, there was dissent among that. And, furthermore, I sat in on that classified briefing and they divulged not one fact. They only gave us their opinions. So, we’re back at the same place again. We need facts to work with.”

Camerota then asked, “Just so I’m clear Congressman: You do not believe that Russia meddled?”

King answered, “I don’t know. I don’t have — I don’t know if they meddled or not. I want to see a transcript; I want to hear some audio. I want to see a chronological timeline, that we can say these things we know that are facts. Because what we’re dealing with are opinions.”

No, 17-U.S. Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails

Unfortunately, Russia being behind the hacks is more conjecture than fact. Some have been leaked by Democrats themselves, others may have been leaked by NSA officials getting back at Hillary for the death of some intelligence agency employee’s and the worry that her reckless behavior with State Secrets would continue in the White House. Annnd may some were done by Wikileaks. The funny thing is however that Hillary denies her emails were at the same time she blames Russia.

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

  • …are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible….

Don’t forget that some are saying that a portion of these WIkiLeaks came from a Democrat operative, that dies in the nick of time:

DNC staffer Seth Rich was mysteriously murdered in the streets of Washington, D.C., on July 10. Although it is being investigated as a robbery, his wallet, credit cards and watch were not taken. The 27-year old was shot in the back on July 10 at 4:15 a.m. near his affluent neighborhood, while he was reportedly walking home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Police still have no suspects, witnesses or motive. His mother told the local NBC station that there were bruises on his face, knees and hands, apparently from trying to fend off his attackers.

[….]

Rich was a data analyst, so it is very possible he could have had access to the DNC’s emails. Julian Assange of Wikileaks said recently on TV that it wasn’t Russian hackers who intercepted the emails, as the Hillary Clinton campaign has alleged; instead, any one of a number of staffers within the DNC could have leaked them.

(RPT)