The New York Times’ ‘Russian Bounties’ Story Just Unraveled

Another day – another major media fiasco.  The story that Russia offered Afghan militants to kill US troops was bogus.

In the summer of 2020, New York Times reported, based on “anonymous sources” (is there another kind?) that Russia offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan.  And the kicker: then-President Trump was briefed on the bounty plot and did nothing about it.

Now, the U.S. intelligence community admits that it only had “low to moderate” confidence in the bounty allegation.  “Translated from the jargon of spy world, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven – and possibly untrue.”

So, the story was not based on US intelligence?  I guess the “anonymous sources” that reporters Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt, and Michael Schwirtz used were Charlie’s college roommate, Eric’s third cousin, and Michael’s friend who he regularly meets for a Friday night drink.

“Anonymous sources” became the hallmark of today’s journalism.  I place so much confidence in “anonymous sources”, that If my friend told me my husband was cheating on me based on “anonymous sources,” I’d tell her to screw off.  I want to know the source of the story before I can judge if it is reliable.  But today, the ever uncurious US media consumers accept what used to be known as “gossip” as the golden standard of journalism.

Enter the NYT’s weapon of Trump destruction – former tabloid queen and the unending treasure trove of “anonymous sources” Maggie Haberman.   In the last four years, she’s done more than a story a day on Donald Trump.  Wow, that’s quite an obsession.  I am surprised Donald Trump didn’t file for a restraining order.

Shockingly, not a single story was positive.  You cover a man every single day and you can’t find one positive thing to report, just to make an attempt at fairness?  I think if Maggie was covering Osama Bin Laden every day she would find a couple of positive things to say – maybe, Osama being “an austere religious scholar?”  But of course, nothing Trump did was any good.

The true expertise of Maggie Haberman is that she used to be a Clinton operative.  During her time at Politico, she served as “a friendly reporter” for Hillary Clinton to plant favorable stories about the Clintons.  That sheds some light on who Maggie’s “anonymous sources” are – all of them disgruntled Clinton staffers who were left without a job when Hillary lost the 2016 election.

The truth is Maggie Haberman is not an exception.  All New York Times reporters are “the friendlies” for the Biden administration.  With Trump gone, their only job now is to report on Joe Biden as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and get exclusive access to the Biden administration for their creativity.

Or as Jeff Zucker of CNN calls it, a nine o’clock staff meeting.

 

 RWR original article syndication source.

Share this:

What do you think?

Posted by Tatyana Larina

Tatyana Larina comes from my favorite work of poetry.  And that's the only time you'll see me quoting Wikipedia as a source.

I came to the US in 1991, lived in San Francisco for 5 years, and I have a Computer Science degree.  I worked in software industry for several years, later switching to a career of a full time mom, and I never looked back.

In my younger days, I wasn’t a conservative. That is not to say that I was ever a liberal – I was not anything at all. I had no idea that there were such concepts as “conservative” and “liberal”. I did not pay attention to politics at all, and the most political knowledge you would get out of me would be who the US President was, and even for that you had to catch me on the right day.
My first introduction to politics was during the second Israeli intifada in 2002. Unspeakable violence erupted in Israel. Every day dozens of people were killed. Even though I didn’t follow politics, that deeply affected me. I felt sad, frustrated, and powerless. And one night, I happened to stumble on an MSNBC program called “Alan Keyes is making sense.” He was talking passionately about Israel and the violence, and he addressed my feelings very well.  Since that evening, I turned on Alan Keyes every night, and by his commentary he was able to take away some of the frustration and anger that I had. It was like a nightly therapy session.
Feeling intrigued after watching Alan Keyes, I wondered what else MSNBC had in store. I switched through the channels, and low and behold, I found Scarborough Country. Right off, Joe Scarborough wasn’t what he is today at all. He was a solid conservative (as I now understand), making common sense conservative points. I found him interesting and engaging. Opposing liberalism had not entered my mind at that time. I still didn’t know anything about liberalism. It was just the things he said sounded very common sense and worthwhile to me. Imagine that at some point, MSNBC had a conservative host on the air. Crazy times, ha?
Exploring my new political universe, I switched through more channels, and one night I found FOX. O’Reilly Factor was on. From the very first night, I was hooked. I abandoned Scarborough. O’Reilly was not just common sense – he was aggressive, and he was a fighter. He was Scarborough on steroids. He wasn’t just talking – he was taking on what he thought to be wrong and unjust. Ever since the first time, and until untimely end of Bill’s FOX career, I don’t think I ever missed one Factor.
For forming my political views, and my ability to formulate them, I have to give special credit to three people: Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly, and Greg Guttfeld.  To Charles - philosophy.  To Bill - realistic and pragmatic approach to politics.  To Greg - realization that a good joke will change more minds than a long lecture.
And for everything else, thanks to my family.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Breonna Taylor: Publisher refuses to distribute police officer’s book

Playing His Part In The Great Reset? Pope: Sharing Property Is Not Communism, It Is Pure Christianity