@hightor,
An excerpt from the WP article (this portion is the letter written by 'journalists' at the paper to their editor)
We understand that anxiety about foreign – especially Russian – influence is a familiar trope in American politics, and has been used in the past to suppress internal dissent. But to emphasize this particular angle in Nation coverage over the conduct of the Trump administration is a dereliction of our responsibility as progressive journalists. Last week, for example, the magazine ran a piece casting doubt on the motivation of the officials behind the White House leaks, one of several it has published in recent months that have implied the real threat to national security is not Trump’s conduct but rather the attacks on him. As longtime associates of The Nation, we are deeply concerned that by making these editorial emphases and by likening calls for investigations into the Russia connection to “red baiting,” the magazine is not only playing into the hands of the Trump administration, but doing a dishonor to its best traditions. We have noted, too, with dismay, that Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter and other far-right adversaries have taken comfort in the writings of other Nation writers on the current crisis.
The dissenters appealed for a change in position: “We believe The Nation occupies a unique position in the ecology of American journalism, and precisely because of this position, it’s all the more important that the magazine get on the right side of this story as it develops.” In late June, vanden Heuvel met with the letter’s signers; she notes that an editorial board meeting in March had already addressed disagreements on Russia coverage.
Katha Pollitt, a columnist who signed the letter, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that her worries about the issue go beyond alleged Russia collusion. “I just felt that for some reason, we are too heavily invested in the defense of Putin and all his works,” she said. And she can’t abide too much more applause for Nation content from certain quarters. “These are our friends now? The Washington Times, Breitbart, Seth Rich truthers and Donald Trump Jr.? Give me a break. It’s very upsetting to me. It’s embarrassing.”
The article you linked is so disturbing to me. Journalists at the paper petitioned the editor to drop the story. They're upset that the investigation has helped Trump. They're mad because what they found revealed that Putin isn't quite as evil as the MSM and the Democrats need him to be.
They are also horrified that someone linked the DNC inside hack to Seth Rich.
I'm glad you also made the schoolyard Benghazi scream in your post. It is incredibly pertinent to the DNC FRAUD case, and this story.
A great Clinton ploy to get rid of damning news is to get all their mouthpieces, their colluding media, their cronies at papers to all treat it with distant. If they all in concert say the say lie long and loud enough, people either believe it or they're too embarrassed to present it in conversation.
Yeah, Benghazi. I think Clinton and others in the Obama administration fucked it up and caused deaths.
And yeah, Seth Rich. He was a Bernie Sanders supporter who had great access to the **** we saw in Wikileaks, he knew Bernie (and all his supporters) were being cheated, and he leaked it.
And yeah, Russian hoax! (First time I've used the term, but it does fit). There has been not one shred of hard evidence that Russia had anything to do with "hacking" our election; however, there is now hard data that says they could not have. The narrative came from Hillary Clinton immediately after she was caught in the release of her own words and those of her cheating colluding campaign -- along with the media types on her payroll.
And rather than attend to that avalanche of treasonous poison,
Russia.
Like 'squirrel!'
Scoff about Benghazi. Everything you do is avoidance of facts.
