Just catching this - but Bolton being sidelined for the Dear Leader summit doesn't bode well for holding the line on KJU's lies, games & obfuscation. =>>https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1003845874840227840 …
This has nothing to do w/ anything although it sounds nefarious. There are press people that could say that about me, probably.
-
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/379916-officials-say-trump-was-hesitant-about-hiring-bolton-because-of-his … here's Maggie saying back in March that 1) Trump didn't want to hire Bolton "because of his moustache" & 2) that John Kelly didn't like Bolton more than Trump didn't like him. Does that sound like honest reporting or something a Dem operative would say?
-
That sounds like honest reporting. I mean it could be wrong but it doesn't sound dishonest. Just because a political operative might say something doesn't mean it's "dishonest."
-
printing something you know is wrong is the literal definition of dishonest. i give Maggie credit for not being stupid enough to think that Trump refused to hire someone because of facial hair
-
Maybe you're wrong about Trump, because you don't actually know that she was dishonest vs. wrong - if she was wrong. I tend to think she was right because it make sense that Trump would be influenced by Bolton's appearance.
-
so you think that a guy who Trump didn't want to hire, and who John Kelly didn't want hired, and who Pompeo didn't want hired, somehow accidentally made it onto the national security team? ok
-
Things change. Stories can be accurate at the time they're written, then things change, especially in this WH.
-
bear in mind that she also printed that Kelly was calling Trump an idiot all over town and Kelly has said that was bullshit flat out Kelly is lying about hating Bolton and Trump both though, that's the explanation
-
I am not saying she is always right and never wrong. I'm saying she's not making things up and that I find these things believable.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
lol Hillary's team "never having been disappointed" in stories they fed to Maggie is not relevant? They "can do the most shaping" by leaking to her? Excuse me, but I think that's very relevant.
-
It could mean all sorts of things. They viewed her as fair, never blindsiding them, always getting things right. Not all tough stories are disappointing for press people - they know the stories are bad going in, so no disappointment.
-
"we can do the most shaping by giving it to her" means she prints what they tell her to/want her to. come on
-
No, that's not what it means. Press leak selectively everyday in an effort to shape coverage. If you look at this from the press operative's POV, there is nothing untoward about this as relates to the reporter.
-
I think if I had changed the name to someone else's, you would agree
-
I absolutely would not agree. I've been trying to explain these things to people for years - and 'm rather sympathetic to media criticism. But I think it's important to first understand how this works.
-
seems weird they would single her out then, if that's just the kind of thing that any normal reporter would do. why do they need her to do it, if its just journalism 101?
-
When you write for high profile publications you get more selective leaks because you have bigger readership. Lot of decisions go into this stuff.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.