NYT and Politifact Choke on a Trump Tweet

Under the political section of the New York Times’ website I read this jarring headline: “Trump Falsely Says U.S. Claim of Russian Hacking Came after Election”, written by Julie Hirschfeld Davis and David Sanger. [This article has since gone missing from the NYT, with the original link going to a revised article, but it can still be found here]

If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?
- Donald Trump

As they have taught us to do, I went and did a little “fact-check”. On the subject of Trump’s tweet I found this headline on Politifact: “Pants on fire! Trump tweet about Whitehouse, Russian hacking probe”. What else can I do? Both a respectable news agency and a respectable fact-checking service have proven Trump wrong.

But upon reading these articles there appears a glaring issue. These two headlines, one from the NYT and the other from Politifact, have something else in common besides their author’s infatuation with Trump’s tweets: they are both piffle—but worse, piffle disguised as fact.

Like the journalism that was prevalent during the election, everything about these articles are gross misrepresentations, or in other words, thread-bare straw men. As straw men are designed to do, the reader is duped into believing that Trump's concerns were refuted—all this while the real story is met with a hand-wave, if touched on at all.

The Revelations of Obama’s probe into the Russians hacking the US elections was mentioned only recently, and in combination with leaks from a battalion of anonymous CIA officials to the Washington Post, which left pundits to lament the illegitimacy of Trump's presidency a full month after the election was over, it is not difficult to understand what Trump was (oh lord) tweeting about.

But in their attempts at debunking (as if a question can be true or false), they not only glossed over Trump’s concerns, but also ignored an issue bigger than Trump’s tweet.

NBC News had more pressing concerns than the journos at the NYT:

The Obama administration didn't respond more forcefully to Russian hacking before the presidential election because they didn't want to appear to be interfering in the election and they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win and a potential cyber war with Russia wasn't worth it, multiple high-level government officials told NBC News.

Pants on fire, NBC. Remember, according to Politifact and some writers at the NYT, Obama did do something. He told Putin to “cut it out”. Obama gave Putin a stern talking to back in September. We would mention that he also spoke to Putin briefly in November, but not about hacking, so we won’t bother.

According to multiple high-level government officials Obama didn’t think a cyberwar was worth it when he thought Hillary was going to win, and now, a month after the election, he orders an investigation and suddenly vows to retaliate. Might Trump be questioning things like these?

Of course not. According to fact-checkers, Trump is clearly saying “US claim of Russian hacking came after the election.”, all without really saying it.

In short "We didn't get our way, so now it's a big deal". I had pointed this out in a couple other threads. The Obama admin didn't think it was worth the effort, because they thought Hillary was going to win. Think about that. Seems it was fine for Russia to do it, with no more than a stern warning, till the election didn't go their way. Now, it's recounts and investigations because...well.. RUSSIA!!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He told Putin to “cut it out”. Obama gave Putin a stern talking to back in September.

I have to laugh...but the Dems are trying to be serious.

Jan. 20th can't come soon enough

This joke has to end.

a reply to: stosh64

Hahahah that's golden.

Obummer told him to "cut it out."

Jesus, are we seven years old?

Hahaha I have to laugh at this.

And here folks we have the beginning, the GENESIS of the ministry of truth!

It is coming, and it's coming fast - soon all your opinions are belong to the government - if you're allowed one that is.

originally posted by: DAVID64
In short "We didn't get our way, so now it's a big deal". I had pointed this out in a couple other threads. The Obama admin didn't think it was worth the effort, because they thought Hillary was going to win. Think about that. Seems it was fine for Russia to do it, with no more than a stern warning, till the election didn't go their way. Now, it's recounts and investigations because...well.. RUSSIA!!

It always happens .... sore losers

F the Ministry of truth! For all their dumbing down efforts there are still plenty of people who ask questions, perhaps, all aren't at a technical level to do something about it but, the fact that they still question gives me hope. That the architects of our demise are human like us( well us -me) and, imperfect.

Politifact rated Obama's "Keep your doctor" remarks true in 2009, half-true in 2012 and lie of the year in 2014. This is who we are trusting to rate the legitimacy of politicians?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just some supportive material

theintercept.com...

From the intercept... this is all very hinky....

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just some supportive material

theintercept.com...

From the intercept... this is all very hinky....

LOL

CrowdStrike again.