The New York Times’ top editor defended his decision to publish some identifying information about the whistleblower whose complaint is at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry, arguing the paper wanted readers to make an informed decision about the person’s credibility.
You know, sometimes it’s better to simply apologize or at least STFU so that others might not notice you are stupid and greedy.
Kinda blows the entire concept of whistleblower “protection”, doesn’t it…
You’re talking about Trump, right? Or his whole maladministration?
Its not like the WB wrote an exclusive editorial for the New York Times. That provides iron-clad identity protection!
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
The Failing NYTimes tries to help out tRump by outing the whistle blower. Pathetic
Well the right will claim whistleblower protection protects the WB from gov’t retaliation, not Trump’s Troops.
" because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible."
If this is any clue of so many possibilities that could come out of this information.
By WITW Staff on November 9, 2018
Right? If this sort of context is so vital why isn’t it standard practice to provide this level of identifying information on all the Times’ anonymous White House sources?
Or whispered some juicy gossip to Maggie the Fluffer.
In this case remember that Trump stated that he wanted the whistle blower to be killed.
We have recent mass murders in which Trump’s words provided the sole motive.
One of the victims of Roy Moore has her house burned down.
The Times is wrong. Just like they are wrong for paying Maureen Dowd to write a column.
“because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.”
I guess I don’t have to take most of NYT reports seriously since they’re from anonymous sources and therefore not credible. And mind you, the IG appointed by ttump has already declared the WB as credible.
Ok… if ferreting out and publishing the details around widespread questions is your mission …then … as the old saying go -
Now … since this president is concealing / lying about several topics and mounting arguments based upon falsehoods … why don’t you busy yourselves with the responsible tasks of dragging the critical concealed facts out into the daylight for all to judge …
… like the loan documents cosigned by Russian mobster / oligarchs
… like the taxes
… like the countless other criminal activities of one Donald J. Trump
SERIOUSLY, N.Y. TIMES ACT LIKE YOU REALLY RESPECT THE TRUTH…
Just go to hell, NY Times. The right-wing whoring began in the 90s when a couple named “Clinton” came into town and has continued unabated since then.
Cancel your subscription, people. They won’t figure it out until it hurts where it counts the most.
Cancelled.
I hear the phone line was backed up for hours, hee hee. I want Sulzberger to weigh in.
I guess they’re tired of being scooped by the Wa Post, and even the WSJ, again and again and again.
And even wronger to publish Thomas Friedman.
They will revisit that in 6 months or so…
