@ericgeller Fair number of pundits mused about this issue but very little nuts and bolts journalism was done
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you're right; NYT & WashPost, among others, didn't do any substantive reporting. Oh, wait.
-
I don't mean any, obviously. Some were great. But there was so much more on process trivia, Wikileaks stuff, tiny issues.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
There *was* a lot of great reporting; driven by a few relentless reporters. It was surrounded & drowned by trivia.https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/802647694388776960 …
-
Corollary: It's not so much that media needs to add real reporting; rather they need to fire the people drowning it out with trash.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you think Leaks showing rigged/corrupt govt was non-news, well, that's why your side lost. Insight Madam. That's all we're asking for.
-
If WikiLeaks' goal was to expose corruption—rather than to install Trump & his cronies—why the silence now?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Only 65 pre-election stories for Trump and "Conflict of Interest" from WaPo, NYT & Politico. (Some are debate transcripts or about Clinton).pic.twitter.com/pOXc2Zmajb
-
Same time period (July 1st to November 8th), 369 stories on Clinton's email server on WaPo, NYT & Politico. (Plus 591 blog entries).pic.twitter.com/6YAcx7VGSx
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@xeni@kurteichenwald had a great piece in Newsweek back in September. Public cared more about email etc. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.