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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
24. The former editor of The New York Times will write anything to stay relevant.
Tue May 3, 2016, 07:06 PM
May 2016

Like the time she did a major for CIA, ignoring war criminals and traitors and stuff:



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:

"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



I wonder what other important stories Ms. Abramson spiked or hawked as a "favor" to CIA and its controllers?
This won't shock you: This article is fundamentally bullshit. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #1
Someone close to us became personally acquainted with Hillary Hortensis May 2016 #16
Also fundamentally rehashed. Posted here... dchill May 2016 #27
And much more. 840high May 2016 #30
Depends on what your deffinition of the word 'is' is Ferd Berfel May 2016 #2
Great read, thank you for posting. Firebrand Gary May 2016 #3
"Fundamentally Honest"... deathrind May 2016 #4
That word is a perfect hedge, really. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #21
Depends of what the definition of fundamental is. Eom. Rebkeh May 2016 #5
Yes, that 'zone of privacy' TM99 May 2016 #6
The Bullshit Meter went off at ... ThePhilosopher04 May 2016 #7
Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest, in the same way.... 99Forever May 2016 #8
LOL farleftlib May 2016 #14
Except when her misstatements are taken out of context. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #9
Cite the case. BootinUp May 2016 #11
. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #12
Then please get your facts straight on what happened. Because you are way off on that one. nt BootinUp May 2016 #13
Really? Pretty weak. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #18
First off both cases she was telling the same story, and her policy has not changed BootinUp May 2016 #19
Which is it? A misstatement, an out of context quote or that's her story and she's sticking with it? lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #33
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahah LOL hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhaha insta8er May 2016 #10
Not a shock to me, but I do my homework! Lucinda May 2016 #15
If her lips are moving farleftlib May 2016 #17
The article comes off a little like damning with faint praise. Buns_of_Fire May 2016 #20
"But he's _fundamentally_ a good kid." Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #22
Shock? No, the media has been trying to gaslight reality itself for over a decade. Shandris May 2016 #23
The former editor of The New York Times will write anything to stay relevant. Octafish May 2016 #24
She's also fundamentally brave, having dodged sniper fire in Bosnia Doctor_J May 2016 #25
She's fundamentally "honest" in precisely the same way that a lawyer is "honest". w4rma May 2016 #26
K&R mcar May 2016 #28
The question here seems to be is Jill Abramson honest? bjo59 May 2016 #29
The truth is that there is no credible evidence supporting the BootinUp May 2016 #31
But then, if you enter the world of FACTS . . . . provably not so much. . . pdsimdars May 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»This may shock you: Hilla...»Reply #24