,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There's been plenty of well-earned criticism of the journalistic ethics of the NYT hit on CAP this morning, but just to go on record, we firmly believe that the repeated reliance on Wikileaks hacked emails as a general reservoir for reporting is also outrageous & inexcusable. 1/6
The New York Times once pretended to take a hard introspective look at the use of these emails, the fruits of what Special Counsel Mueller has charged as a conspiracy against the United States by Russian agents. As Eric Lipton, David Sanger & Scott Shane wrote in December, 2016: 
Indeed that NYT piece noting that journalists using Wikileaks were “becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence” specifically singled out Neera Tanden as a victim of this phenomenon. And yet here we are again.
The Times reference to “gossipy content” is also notable, given both the official headline for today’s piece, "The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist,” and the primary reporter’s alternate headline:
One could hardly imagine a more direct way to revictimize exactly the people that were victimized by Russian intelligences and their “de facto instruments” in the press in 2016.
Thanks to the NYT, the hacked material is the gift that keeps on giving for Russian intelligence, which had an explicit goal of sowing division amongst the American people, and indeed amongst the Democratic Party—which of course was precisely the purpose of today's piece.
