If you don't have proof, stop making this assertion. At least don't make it to me.
-
-
Replying to @ericgeller @zeynep
you do realize they did this during Watergate right? So please explain why you think ignored Trump foundation?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DeAnnSmithkc @zeynep
Please stop asserting willful ignorance when you don't have specific proof.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller @zeynep
here is fact. NY Times did little significant coverage of Trump Foundation. Why do you think that was?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DeAnnSmithkc @zeynep
I can only speculate. But different reporters tend to develop different sources. That informs what they write.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller @zeynep
I won an IRE. I know if Times had wanted to put pit bull like reporter team on Trump Foundation/biz they could have.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DeAnnSmithkc @zeynep
The only conclusion I can draw is that you believe the Times wanted Trump to win.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller @zeynep
that's not at all what I believe. But why OK for you to draw conclusion about my motives but not OK for me re Times?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DeAnnSmithkc @zeynep
You haven't explained what you think the Times wanted to do. You're just casting aspersions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Tell me right now: What do you think was the Times's goal in supposedly ignoring the Foundation?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Can you drop me from this thread? I think the problem is easily explainable by process, not malfeasance. thanks.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @ericgeller
wish you both good night. I do think broadcast v print/digital coverage of election was significant issue.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.