Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post or notify me by Freepmail.
Louis Foxwell
Posted on 01/10/2019 2:17:06 PM PST by detective
I'll give the New York Times some credit. It may be a mostly worthless Democrat messaging machine that promotes racism and anti-Semitism, but at least, unlike the Washington Post, it still maintains some of its traditional habit of correcting errors after they appear.
A properly woke paper would embrace the errors, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez style, as being morally right, even if factually wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
More fake news and outright lies from the NYT.
The original dishonest story was almost certainly leaked to the NYT by the Mueller people.
I'm surprised the NYT corrected their dishonest article.
Slimes loves the word oligarch.
Oligarch.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post or notify me by Freepmail.
Louis Foxwell
Even if he had sent it:
1. Private campaign information is not classified government information.
2. Without declared, or at least undeclared, war against Russia, sending such information to Russians is no different than sending it to French or German nationals.
3. Russia is less dangerous to the USA than the EU, so why should we criticize Manafort for dealing with Russia?
I have to get back to work since it’s obvious as a Trump supporter that I am a Russian agent. Sarcasm.
“I’ll give the New York Times some credit.”
I won’t. Why should they be given credit for doing what should be a routine part of their job, for once?
multiple examples of FakeNews in this piece:
10 Jan: Sputnik: Russian to Conclusions? NYT Misreports Manafort’s Ukraine Ties as Russian
The newspaper’s Twitter account later redacted the statement and tweeted a correction, but the eagerness to jump to conclusions that fit their preconceived narrative is worrisome. It’s also far from the first incident of carelessly biased reporting by the mainstream media regarding Russiagate topics.
Let’s take a moment to recall some of them...
In September 2017 (wow, 2017 was a bad year for reporting on Trump and Russia!), almost every major US news outlet reported that Russian-government-backed hackers targeted the voting systems of 21 states during the 2016 presidential election. However, a senior Department of Homeland Security official corrected this before Congress, telling a House of Representatives panel that November that no attack had happened. Virtually no network reported this whatsoever, except for Sputnik.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201901101071349316-NYT-Misreports-Manaforts-Ukraine-Ties-as-Russian/
what’s wrong with sharing campaign data?? Is it confidential??
It’s at least illegal to share it with PACs, so I am guessing that means it is illegal to give it to Russia too. Trump said he didn’t know Manafort gave this info to Russians and remember that he fired Manafort.
Except it turns out it was the Russians Manafort meant to send it to. It was the Ukraine. Big difference.
The definition of the truth is the first story that hits the street, after that it is a rebuttal and on page 15
Kilimnik is GRU - Russian military intelligence. Akhmetov, despite being born in Ukraine, is part of Putin’s mafia system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.