The award for Best Impeachment Coverage goes to The New York Times -- here's why. [View all]

[ehrnst]

The New York Times’ website was must-see for one reason: running commentary from some of the sharpest reporters in the world. Next to testimony broadcast on the screen, White House and Washington correspondents from the Times such as Maggie Haberman, Emily Cochrane, Michael S. Schmidt, Nicholas Fandos, Annie Karni, Peter Baker and Charlie Savage (and others) offered quick-take commentary and perspective in real time.

Some of that was details that viewers wouldn’t know by just watching, such as when Cochrane wrote, “This is now Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and just two Democrats will be left. Many of the members in the audience have left, but Mark Meadows, a key Trump ally, and Carolyn Maloney, who hopes to take permanent control of the Oversight committee, are among those still here.”

Another example is when Schmidt wrote, “Just a reminder: John Ratcliffe, the Republican who raised objections to (Rep. Adam) Schiff, was Trump’s pick to be the director of national intelligence – the same position that played a pivotal role in the whistle-blower’s complaint being held up before it was sent to Congress.”

But the commentary was at its very best when it was describing a detail or fact, or offering some context that perhaps readers weren’t familiar with, such as when Haberman wrote, “Mulvaney’s press conference in which he conceded there was a quid pro quo continues to be problematic for the president. It’s been raised a few times during this hearing, and was just now with (Rep. Eric) Swalwell to (George) Kent.”

https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2019/the-award-for-best-impeachment-coverage-goes-to-the-new-york-times-heres-why/