To everyone highlighting this part of the NYT story as a "gotcha": Note that this story was itself based on leaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html …pic.twitter.com/CJWuXmbbra
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Much of material in article come from documents and emails "obtained by the Times" from (& interviews with) unnamed sources.
But it is by all appearances a sanctioned story, not least bc it puts best possible spin on Dems.
Sure, but my point is: whether docs came from DNC, FBI, etc., were provided by someone w/an agenda -- just like Guccifer, etc.
So, it's weird to say "NYT furthered Russian agenda" by reporting Guccifer stuff & not "NYT furthered ___ agenda w/this story."
Sources always have their own agenda, even if it's just their concept of the public good (and, IMO, it's usually not that).
But I do think they make it clear these were official Dem sources and so we should understand that's whose agenda it reflects
I suppose, but line critical of NYT reporting Guccifer stuff then implies that leaks are OK only if journos agrees w/agenda.
My reaction was to tweets implying this was a "self-own" by NYT, missing fact that story itself is furthering source's agenda.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.