Wednesday, February 1, 2023

The Columbia Journalism Review Destroys The New York Times Over Their Russiagate/Trump Coverage

The Times and the Washington Post really should give back the Pulitzer Prizes.
And the Times should also give back the one they got for Duranty's garbage on Ukraine. as well.

From the CJR, January 30:

Looking back on the coverage of Trump

Seven and a half years ago, journalism began a tortured dance with Donald Trump, the man who would be the country’s forty-fifth president—first dismissing him, then embracing him as a source of ratings and clicks, then going all in on efforts to catalogue Trump as a threat to the country (also a great source of ratings and clicks).

No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.

For the past year and a half, CJR has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail, and what it means as the country enters a new political cycle. Investigative reporter Jeff Gerth interviewed dozens of people at the center of the story—editors and reporters, Trump himself, and others in his orbit.

The result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history. Gerth’s findings aren’t always flattering, either for the press or for Trump and his team. Doubtless they’ll be debated and maybe even used as ammunition in the ongoing media war being waged in the country. But they are important, and worthy of deep reflection as the campaign for the presidency is about, once again, to begin.

The press versus the president, part one

INTRODUCTION: ‘I realized early on I had two jobs’

The end of the long inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia came in July 2019, when Robert Mueller III, the special counsel, took seven, sometimes painful, hours to essentially say no.

“Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,” is how Dean Baquet, then the executive editor of the New York Times, described the moment his paper’s readers realized Mueller was not going to pursue Trump’s ouster.

Baquet, speaking to his colleagues in a town hall meeting soon after the testimony concluded, acknowledged the Times had been caught “a little tiny bit flat-footed” by the outcome of Mueller’s investigation.

That would prove to be more than an understatement. But neither Baquet nor his successor, nor any of the paper’s reporters, would offer anything like a postmortem of the paper’s Trump-Russia saga, unlike the examination the Times did of its coverage before the Iraq War....

....MUCH MORE

HT: Glenn Greenwald

Speaking of Pulitzer Prizes, the author of this postmortem, Jeff Gerth, has one himself, a tchotchke (just kidding!) from his thirty years doing investigative journalism at the New York Times.

Regarding that last line on Iraq, the Times, along with David Frum now at The Atlantic and his editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, lied us into the Iraq war. If interested see:

On Duranty

On Iraq: 

Today I Learned: That The Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic Was One Of The People Who Lied Us Into The Iraq War

And on big hitters looking at partisan hacks:

Giant of American Journalism Walter Lippmann Looks At Fake News