Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Remember when DUers still tried to defend RT? [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)29. No. Here's why...
Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA
Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT
EXCERPT...
But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.
SNIP...
Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:
CONTINUED with LINKS...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia
Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has lost the imperative to be a check to power
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 August 2012 14.58 EDT
EXCERPT...
But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.
SNIP...
Even more amazing is the reaction of the newspaper's managing editor, Dean Baquet, to these revelations, as reported by Politico's Dylan Byers:
"New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet called POLITICO to explain the situation, but provided little clarity, saying he could not go into detail on the issue because it was an intelligence matter.
CONTINUED with LINKS...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You're right. It is indefensible. RT is just figuring out what we all knew already.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#1
Thom and Louise are wealthy and have been for decades, he says 'we are rich, not Super Rich but
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#7
You seem to turn up a lot when antisemitic conspiracy theories are being called out.
NuclearDem
Oct 2015
#10
LOL! It is funny watching how obsessed some are here, yet remain blind to that log in their own eye.
Rex
Oct 2015
#22
I think posters who promote homophobes, racists and bigots should be banned...nt
SidDithers
Oct 2015
#37
WOW. Awesome find. yes, it's good that RT has become a clearly objectionable source
uhnope
Oct 2015
#5
Illuminati is right up there with crop circles, UFOs, and chemtrails on the batshit crazy scale
Major Nikon
Oct 2015
#6
It can be defended as an alternative news source. As a kid in the 60's I listened to Radio Moscow
LiberalArkie
Oct 2015
#17
As long as you know their bias, it is useful to know what the "official" line is.
pampango
Oct 2015
#25
I'm just glad that most of the Putinistas appear to be sporting BS avatars. Good grief.
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2015
#26
It's very sad. They started off with a lot of promise and were on the right track.
stevenleser
Oct 2015
#27