When dealing with #MediaJackals, especially their pack leader in the form of the NYT, always assume the worst. These are sharp-toothed scavengers, but fierce.
Here there are three questions to ask when evaluating the perfidy of this episode of #MediaJackaling:
Was Clinton talking about the Russians or Republicans “grooming” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard? Clinton said “they’ve got their eye [on Gabbard] and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” In fairness, this is ambiguous. What makes it less ambiguous is Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill saying afterward “if the nesting doll fits” and “the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests.” We may reasonably conclude that Clinton said the Russians are “grooming” Gabbard.
Did the NYT #MediaJackals disclose the stealth edit to their readers? They did not initially. They did later, per this tweet, only after public criticism. We may be charitable and assume they would have at some point even without public criticism.
Was the subsequent story post-stealth edits correct and true? This is the odd thing. It is not. It now says that Clinton suggested the “Republicans were ‘grooming’” Gabbard. This is not a neutral fair journalistic organization interested in an honest draft of history. At the very least, say “Clinton used the term ‘grooming’ ambiguously” and leave it at that. But the NYT took its marching orders from the Clinton campaign.
Well, we always knew the NYT was populated by #MediaJackals. We should not be surprised.
When dealing with #MediaJackals, especially their pack leader in the form of the NYT, always assume the worst. These are sharp-toothed scavengers, but fierce.
Here there are three questions to ask when evaluating the perfidy of this episode of #MediaJackaling:
Was Clinton talking about the Russians or Republicans “grooming” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard? Clinton said “they’ve got their eye [on Gabbard] and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” In fairness, this is ambiguous. What makes it less ambiguous is Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill saying afterward “if the nesting doll fits” and “the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests.” We may reasonably conclude that Clinton said the Russians are “grooming” Gabbard.
Did the NYT #MediaJackals disclose the stealth edit to their readers? They did not initially. They did later, per this tweet, only after public criticism. We may be charitable and assume they would have at some point even without public criticism.
Was the subsequent story post-stealth edits correct and true? This is the odd thing. It is not. It now says that Clinton suggested the “Republicans were ‘grooming’” Gabbard. This is not a neutral fair journalistic organization interested in an honest draft of history. At the very least, say “Clinton used the term ‘grooming’ ambiguously” and leave it at that. But the NYT took its marching orders from the Clinton campaign.
Well, we always knew the NYT was populated by #MediaJackals. We should not be surprised.
PS: The video clip on CNN is here (unlike the NYT not yet history-revised to comply with the new narrative): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Biy5dQFWA&feature=youtu.be