Example of how the NY Times is Hypocritical and Twists the News into Anti-Trump Slant

[InTheLight]

Here is an excellent example of how the NY Times puts a spin on the news to make it appear Trump is doing something wrong.

Here is the article. You should read the whole thing, but you can get the gist of it after a couple of paragraphs.
-----
Trump order sets up potential clash with CIA: Trump order sets up potential clash with CIA
-----

Basically there are complaints that Trump's release of classified information on how the Russian collusion investigation got started could cause damage to the CIA. But look at the article closely.

1. Not one CIA employee or official is mentioned or quoted as thinking this could damage the agency.

2. The idea that it could be harmful to the CIA was debunked by National Intelligence Director Dan Coats.

“I am confident that the attorney general will work with the IC in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk,” Coats said.

3. The NYTimes suggested the damage done would be to expose agents working inside Russia. This is a total fabrication. Here is how they put it:

As Coats’ comments suggested, intelligence officials believe the danger of Trump’s move was that it could endanger the agency’s ability to keep the identities of its sources secret.

Oh really? That's quite a leap, isn't it? Protecting classified information, as Coats described it = identifying sources. (Notice they used the word 'danger' and 'endanger' in the same sentence.)

Who are these people that oppose the release of this information? In fact, the only people complaining about it is REPORTERS. The NY Times said "Trump defended his decision to reporters". Defended his decision. As if there was something inherently wrong in it.

Now I ask you--have you ever known any reporters that didn't want classified information or potentially classified information made public? Any reporters that are opposed to government transparency? Any reporters that don't salivate at the prospect of gaining access to secret information? Why, you'd think they could make some headlines, print some stories, and sell some papers with that sort of info.

But, no, when Trump might expose that Obama's administration could have been behind the fake Russian collusion investigation, suddenly the NYTimes is worried about the idea that some secrets might be made public, and they are aghast at the idea!



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[GoodTidings]

Now I ask you--have you ever known any reporters that didn't want classified information or potentially classified information made public? Any reporters that are opposed to government transparency? Any reporters that don't salivate at the prospect of gaining access to secret information? Why, you'd think they could make some headlines, print some stories, and sell some papers with that sort of info.

But, no, when Trump might expose that Obama's administration could have been behind the fake Russian collusion investigation, suddenly the NYTimes is worried about the idea that some secrets might be made public, and they are aghast at the idea!

That is a good point. If anything the media is chomping at the bit to get ahold of classified info. To be the reporter who is the first break the news about some classified material is a ratings bonanza.

It would almost seem like they don't want it released for fear they might be implicated along with the deep state, given how badly they want that info to stay classified.

I would say that beside the liberal media, the three amigos, Clapper, Brennan and Comey are particulally opposed to anything being declassified given that they know they will be implicated.

 

[church mouse guy]

I met Coats once but he has been a real disappointment. I wish that he would retire. Why does he work for a man that he dislikes? I thought it was supposed to be:

"If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him, speak well of him, and stand by the institution he represents. Remember, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must growl, condemn, and eternally find fault - resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart's content - but as long as you are part of the institution, do not condemn it. If you do, the first high wind that comes along will blow you away, and probably you will never know why." --Elbert Hubbard.

The NYT has always been a problem. The covered up the Holocaust. They covered up Stalin's starvation of the Ukraine. They insisted that Castro was not a communist and that everything was peachy in Cuba.

Now they are owned in part by one of the richest men in the world--Carlos Slim. Carlos Slim hates Trump and we have six more years of biased writing by the NYT to go.