Media on Trump:
Leah McElrath
@leahmcelrath
This framing normalizes the existential threat Trump poses to our republic and renders most Americans invisible.
Bravo, @peterbakernyt, on this exquisite example of propaganda.
IF our nation survives, this will be used to teach how NOT to cover ascendant authoritarianism.
Peter DaouVerified account
@peterdaou
Good morning 2018. Let the @nytimes headline below remind everyone that the mainstream media brought us here.
Concrete evidence: verrit.com/harvard-study-mainstream-media-acted-as-trumps-mouth-piece-clintons-foe/
Eric Boehlert
@EricBoehlert
NYT reporter who did lapdog Trump interview follows up w/ puff "news" piece abt Trump's New Year's Eve;
<a class="break-all" href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/us/politics/trump-new-years-eve-mar-a-lago.html?referer=m.facebook.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/us/politics/trump-new-years-eve-mar-a-lago.html?referer=m.facebook.com
it's not a bug, it's a feature
if reporter moved to Arts desk and covered Hollywood stars, coverage would look same
Guests crossed a lengthy red carpet with champagne flutes and martini glasses in their hands to get to the ballroom doors. In a nod to the brisk 60-degree Florida weather and the time of year, many women wrapped themselves in fluffy white and black fur stoles, some trailing down to the floor. Among them: Louise Linton, who arrived with her husband, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, in a white fur capelet. “Great year,” Mr. Mnuchin said of the coming 12 months. “Big year!”
remember, two Times reporters are currently working on Trump WH book that's built around access
And
Axios
@axios
Trump campaign members told Mark Halperin their juiciest anecdotes from 2016 for the next Game Change book. But with Halperin out of the picture, the question is whether those stories will see the light of day.
www.axios.com/mark-halperins-lost-trove-of-insider-trump-information-2521334862.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100&utm_term=politics
And
POLITICOVerified account
@politico
Trump: My approval rating is the same as Obama’s was in his first year politi.co/2DDeWfD
Greg Sargent
@ThePlumLineGS
When headlines echo Trump's false or dubious claims without signaling to readers that they are false or dubious, they are doing what Trump wants them to do.
This was the whole point of the lie in the first place -- and the lying is getting rewarded.
Trump on media:
Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
Trump has attacked the press 990 times in tweets since declaring his candidacy on June 16, 2015.
That averages to a little more than one attack every day, according to an NYU masters student who tracked Trump’s attacks.
www.cjr.org/united_states_project/trump-twitter-spreadsheet-press-attacks.php
Media on media:
New NYT scoop on Russia raises questions about old NYT story on Russia
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/01/new-nyt-scoop-on-russia-raises-questions-about-old-nyt-story-on-russia/__twitter_impression=true&tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.bd1c1e65b4de
It was a week before the 2016 presidential election that the New York Times wrote this headline: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.” The story’s lead cited the curiosity of federal law enforcement on this front: “For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign,” read the story by Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers. “Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.”
Topical stuff. Major media outlets had been following strands of the Trump-Russia story for months. Just before the Lichtblau-Myers collaboration hit the Internet, for example, Slate ran a detailed story asking whether a server of the Trump Organization was communicating with Moscow’s Alfa Bank. Perhaps, concluded the story.
The New York Times piece pooh-poohed the possibility, reporting that agents “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Furthermore, the story gave this summary of the investigations: “Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”
Sarah Kendzior
@sarahkendzior
People forget that NYT admitted that they 1) refused to print damning info on Trump/Russia or 2) purposefully chose to play it down.
Their public editor no longer employed there documented it in a Nov 2016 article.
twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/801413169960943616
Tommy ChristopherVerified account
@tommyxtopher
NYT reporter also tweeted that Trump admitted he "may" have been told about Don Jr. collusion meeting. WH omitted from transcript. He was never asked about it again.
ijr.com/the-response/2017/07/920215-white-house-covers-trump-admitting-reporters-may-heard-don-jr-meeting/
On the bright side, there's a transcript, which means there's a tape. Which means Mueller will ask about it.
And
Adam ParkhomenkoVerified account
@AdamParkhomenko
One final & short thread I want to share in 2017. There has been very little talk of what Putin had in mind for a President Hillary Clinton, which is what he ultimately expected to be dealing with this year. But the larger untold story there is important for the future 1/
Touching on this topic, I suggest everyone bookmark & read (in 2018 when you aren’t getting lit like Don Lemon in 2016) a ’16 cycle story by @michaelcrowley and @juliaioffe that is still a critical read today:
"Why Putin hates Hillary” 2/
www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Putin had planned to paint the “victory” of Hillary Clinton’s election as President as a “conspiracy” that elected her.
He had many reasons that he came after her during the election, and many different plans for post-election. 3/
Many of those reasons (in his mind) Putin hates Hillary are often reported and often not. But these reasons will be important as we look to fight back against his continued active measures campaign in 2018 and beyond. 4/
Putin blames Hillary publicly & privately for everything from the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, Panama Papers, Duma elections, and on and on. 5/
We know Putin had many reasons to go after Hillary with a goal of creating a false “baggage” and more “division” in the West for 2017, which would support his goals for the year ultimately heading into his 2018 elections. But here is what is key: 6/
As reporters look at stories in 2018, especially as they relate to ongoing Kremlin active measures campaigns, they must ask themselves…based on recent reporting from individuals such as @razhael on the number of individuals (press included) targeted by Fancy Bear, 7/
Was John Podesta’s email account, dumped on October 7, 2016 for a very specific reason, the only email account the Kremlin obtained during the massive scale operation that has now been reported in recent months in a series of stories by the AP? 8.
Or, did the Kremlin obtain additional email accounts of individuals at all levels of the government, campaigns, and media? This seems likely. It also seems Putin believed Hillary would win, and saved this data for 2017. 9/
So as we enter into 2018, I would like to see more reporting and investigations by the free media (unfortunately, GOP Congress is playing politics) into what can be expected in 2018 and beyond and not make the same mistakes they did in the 2016 cycle. 10/
Look no further with mistakes the Kremlin made when releasing series of stolen data where the same documents were changed and inadvertently released and didn’t match. Reporters were quick to run with the Podesta emails, will they be as quick to do the same with their own? 11/
And finally, remember, Putin thought Hillary was going to win. He wanted to make her job more complicated by dividing the west further in hopes there were so many distractions the U.S. would lay off Russia and not focus on his own re-election. But that didn’t happen. 12/
Which would leave one to believe that the Kremlin is sitting on far more data than anyone realizes or discusses right now that they had expected to use in 2017 and beyond against WH staff, reporters, and beyond. But at the end of 2016 all we saw was the Podesta inbox. 13/
So, dear media, before you are so quick to report on non-exciting Podesta like incidents from the Kremlin next time, look at what the Kremlin does with non-exciting data, and how quick you are to run with it. Because we know they doctor not just data, but more (I.E. Navalny) 14/
Because I would venture to guess, many of what the Kremlin will try to do in the future to further divide the west will also involve your (reporters) stolen data, which may very well be doctored, and more, too. 15/15
And
Rupert Murdoch’s decision to sell most of 21st Century Fox appears to resolve a mystery: which of his sons will inherit his empire
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/business/media/rupert-murdoch-21st-century-fox-disney.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur