While it's not quite equivalent, I remember two years ago waiting for an indictment n a case before this happened...http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article24789151.html …
And now @washingtonpost has also mentioned it, and in the same way, attributing it to @CNN without confirmation https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/29/frustrated-with-the-russia-investigation-trump-demands-democrats-and-hillary-clinton-face-more-scrutiny/?utm_term=.6f6dd60e3af2 …https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/924683622732349440 …
-
-
-
was buzz that something was imminent, but we held off on publishing b/c we could never get sourcing strong enough... and then no indictment.
-
my guess is that a lot of DC newsrooms are weighing caution vs. competition on this. don't wanna jump in a lake unless you know its depth.
-
-
I'm thinking CNN is pretty damn confident in it's sourcing. But if NYT can't match it exactly, they're not going to risk it.
-
Or even in ITS sourcing...
-
I apologize for the typo.
-
I do appreciate your analysis, here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So all we have so far is one CNN story attributed to single source "briefed on the matter"? Hmm. That better be a good source.
-
Reuters as well
-
Reuters had two separate stories for a while, one reporting that CNN was reporting and so on, and then later a second story with a different byline and an independent source.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Didn’t NBC confirm indictment (s) yesterday?
- 1 more reply
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.