Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If the Senate GOP’s belated investigations into the Russiagate abuse of power are to be useful, they might want to shift gears and instead focus on who revealed what to which reporters. Reporters should not be expected to reveal sources but there is no bar against compelling a source to reveal to whom and what he or she divulged to reporters.
The staffs of the Washington Post and New York Times shared the 2017 Pulitzer of National reporting for their coverage of the bogus Russian interference/conspiracy charges leveled against Trump. They produced multiple stories that collectively contained not the slightest indication that this attack was done entirely in bad faith by the very people they likely relied upon as their principal sources.
The biggest political story of the decade was an astonishingly brazen collective attempt to undo the 2016 election or, at a minimum, cripple the incoming new administration. We now know with certainty that people in very high places abused their authority, lied about what they knew and when they knew it and tried to convince the American people, Congress and FISA courts that the duly elected President of the United States had been compromised by a foreign power. The vicious and unduly long-lasting Mueller probe was part and parcel of that effort.
The supposedly top professionals at two formerly highly respected newspapers not only missed the real story but apparently knowingly served the purposes of the perpetrators of the fraud. And for that, they were collectively awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
We are entitled to know what they were fed and when. We deserve to know what they did or did not do to verify that garbage. We need to know when or if any of them realized that something untoward was going on. In short, to what extent were they knowing participants in the fraud or were they all so blindingly stupid that they missed the real story about abuse of power and process.
It would also be interesting to know which of these reporters the conspirators regarded as the easiest mark, the one most likely to run with whatever was fed. My suspicion is that it would be the WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima based on what was hinted in released text messages.
In any event, it’s time to undo this award, to demand that it be rescinded or returned. Or at least put a big asterisk on the web page.Published in