The Trump-Russia scandal is a big media fail

[Jacque67 7,328]

the fundamentals of the Russia scandal emerged and were confirmed: Vladimir Putin’s regime mounted a covert campaign to subvert the election by cyber-attacking Democratic targets. Private cybersecurity companies declared that Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee as soon as that assault was publicly disclosed in June 2016. By early October, the Obama administration officially attributed to the Moscow government the hacks and subsequent dumps of stolen documents and emails and noted this operation had been orchestrated by Russia’s “senior-most officials.” That was easy-to-read code for “Putin.”

Yet this received far less attention than other key campaign stories. A study by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard examined media references during the campaign and found nearly 70,000 references to Clinton and emails—an important story, to be sure—but just over 5,000 to Trump and Russia. Mentions of “Trump” and “women,” including reporting on his history of sexual harassment and assault, registered just 10,000.

With the Russian meddling relegated to a side show, Trump’s role in it was an even more tangential topic. And when I say “role,” I don’t mean to suggest there was hard evidence that Trump and his associates were directly in cahoots directly with the Russian scheme. What we do know—as I’ve written elsewhere—is that Trump and his campaign aides did aid and abet Putin’s plot.

Despite the mounting evidence, Trump kept denying that Russians were involved in the hack-and-dump operation. He did so even after he received an intelligence briefing in mid-August 2016 that noted the U.S. intelligence community had identified Russia as the culprit. At the first presidential debate, he famously said, “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?” He continued to downplay or deny Russian involvement after the intelligence community in early October officially and publicly blamed Moscow.

It was obvious at the time that these were flat-out lies and textbook examples of disinformation and media manipulation. Here was a presidential candidate providing cover to a hostile regime’s covert effort to undermine an American election. (Not to mention Trump’s bromantic remarks about Putin and the financial links between Putin allies and Trump aides, including campaign chief Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page.)

How was that not an oh-s&&& scandal?

The Biggest Trump-Putin Highlights

What has happened since the election further impeaches Trump and his lieutenants. In a truly better-late-than-never situation, more reporters began plowing this field. There have now been multiple news stories disclosing pre- and post-election meetings between Russians and key Trump people, including Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions, and Jared Kushner. Sergei Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., told the Washington Post that he met with Flynn prior to the election. What exactly was the Trump campaign’s top national security adviser telling Putin’s man in Washington even as Russia was actively trying to subvert the election? No one is saying—yet.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/10/the-trump-russia-scandal-is-a-huge-media-fail/

[bcking 3,157]

Sorry but I have a chronological problem with this analysis.

 

If my memory serves me appropriately, wasn't the connection between Trump and the Russians only something that came up much later? While the Russian involvement in the hack on the DNC was found in summer of 2016, I don't recall that being related to Trump in any way at the time. 

 

So if they were looking for "Trump + Russia" stories pre-election, it isn't surprising there weren't any. It wasn't a story. I'm sure there were plenty of just plain "Russia" stories if you leave Trump out of it.

[Jacque67 7,328]

David Corn broke the story to the US.

 

look into Felix Sater, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Kushner and many others if you're interested in money laundering and Trump's connections with Russian oligarchs. Started way before he started campaigning. Maggie Haberman (NYT) for one,has connections with Kushner, and wants to write a book about Trump: she writes fluff pieces all the time.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

David Corn broke the story to the US.

 

look into Felix Sater, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Kushner and many others if you're interested in money laundering and Trump's connections with Russian oligarchs. Started way before he started campaigning. Maggie Haberman (NYT) for one,has connections with Kushner, and wants to write a book about Trump: she writes fluff pieces all the time.

 

 

Even in Corn's article he says he wrote his story on October 31st, a week before the election

 

The FBI may have already been looking into a connection, but it wasn't public knowledge. The media can't be expected to report on a classified on-going investigation that they have no knowledge of.

 

I still think the comparison of media attention ending on election day is biased because of the timeframes for each issue. The Clinton email investigation had been going on for the year prior and was just ending in the summer/fall. The Trump-Russia investigation may have started, but it wasn't public knowledge until possibly a week before the election. I just don't think you can compare the media coverage between the two and say that somehow the media was failing to report the story. Seems like they just didn't know the story at the time.

 

Once they did, I don't think any of us can say that the media hasn't adequately covered the Trump-Russia investigation/relationship. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Even in Corn's article he says he wrote his story on October 31st, a week before the election

 

The FBI may have already been looking into a connection, but it wasn't public knowledge. The media can't be expected to report on a classified on-going investigation that they have no knowledge of.

 

I still think the comparison of media attention ending on election day is biased because of the timeframes for each issue. The Clinton email investigation had been going on for the year prior and was just ending in the summer/fall. The Trump-Russia investigation may have started, but it wasn't public knowledge until possibly a week before the election. I just don't think you can compare the media coverage between the two and say that somehow the media was failing to report the story. Seems like they just didn't know the story at the time.

 

Once they did, I don't think any of us can say that the media hasn't adequately covered the Trump-Russia investigation/relationship. 

That's very generous of you. 

[bcking 3,157]

You already know my personal opinion of Trump, everyone here does. I

 

That being said, I do try to think critically about what I read whenever possible (and when I'm well rested). Pointing out what I see as an issue in this study doesn't change my opinion of Trump. It just changes how I interpret this study and their conclusions.

[Jacque67 7,328]

20 minutes ago, bcking said:

You already know my personal opinion of Trump, everyone here does. I

 

That being said, I do try to think critically about what I read whenever possible (and when I'm well rested). Pointing out what I see as an issue in this study doesn't change my opinion of Trump. It just changes how I interpret this study and their conclusions.

You should follow Haberman on Twitter.