News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: New York Times Forced To Heavily Amend Another Supposed K.T. McFarland - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

New York Times Forced To Heavily Amend Another Supposed K.T. McFarland 'Scoop' Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • 1.4% Neanderthal
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 49,557
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 05 December 2017 - 07:53 PM

New York Times Forced To Heavily Amend Another Supposed K.T. McFarland 'Scoop'

Washington Examiner
by Becket Adams
Dec 5, 2017, 11:32 AM


The New York Times got ahead of itself again with yet another supposedly hot scoop involving former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, the Russians and the 2016 presidential election.

The story, now titled “McFarland’s Testimony About Russia Contacts Is Questioned,” reported originally that an email sent by the former Trump transition official indicated she lied to Congress this summer when she was questioned about disgraced Gen. Michael Flynn's communications with the Russians.

The article has been heavily amended since publication so that it is now mostly innuendo. The initial references to the emails have been removed, and the story now leans mostly on Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who only questions whether McFarland was forthright in her testimony.

The headline alone has undergone multiple facelifts. Here they are, in order of change:

  • “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows”
  • “Email Counters Aide on Flynn’s Russia Contact”

It then reverted to back to: “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows,” and then changed twice more:

  • “Email Counters Testimony On Flynn by Former Aide”
  • “Former Aide’s Testimony On Russia Is Questioned”

Multiple headline changes are not the worst of it. Not by a long shot.

The original version of the Dec. 4 report began with the following lines:

An email sent during the transition by President Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, K.T. McFarland, appears to contradict the testimony she gave to Congress over the summer about contacts between the Russian ambassador and Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Ms. McFarland had told lawmakers that she did not discuss or know anything about interactions between Sergey I. Kislyak, who had been Moscow’s ambassador to the United States, and Mr. Flynn, according to Senate documents.
But emails obtained by The New York Times appear to undermine those statements. In a Dec. 29 message about newly imposed Obama administration sanctions against Russia for its election interference, Ms. McFarland, then serving on Mr. Trump’s transition team, told another transition official that Mr. Flynn would be talking to the Russian ambassador that evening.
The discrepancy is likely to add to mounting troubles for the White House that stem from Mr. Flynn’s interactions with Russian officials. He pleaded guilty on Friday to lying to F.B.I. agents about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak about the sanctions.

These four paragraphs have been removed entirely from the Times' report. The story’s core message has also been softened considerably.


Full Article

#2 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,692
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:10 PM

Standard retraction: "We're sorry for these erroneous reports but we opened a national discussion on how to correct and move forward".

Translation: "We misinformed and misled with malicious intent. Standard non-apology for lying. No regerts".

#3 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,074
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:39 PM


#4 User is offline   Censport 

  • @CensportRacing
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,480
  • Joined: 13-August 03

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:57 PM

When you rely on a self-serving liar like Cory Booker as a source, revisions to your narrative are the only logical result. To expect anything else is insane.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users