,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Here, Chait admits the institutional bias he complains is a false accusation. The NYT has been spun for years as a PR tool, by Trump’s campaign, his staff, and Trump himself, by (Chait’s own words) letting Haberman “inform the paper’s entire coverage of Trump.”
Chait’s #fumblebrag raises the question: if Haberman’s spin “informs NYT’s entire coverage of Trump,” how much did her PR spin “inform” @nytimes’s decision to run a pre-2016-election article headlined with the breathtaking lie: No Connection Found Between Trump And Russia.
Given Chait’s concession that everything NYT says about Trump is driven by Haberman, it makes that headline seem less like a hapless blunder by a paper infatuated with its own infallibility, and more a profoundly-corrupt bit of election meddling.
Keep in mind, Chait’s the one who said Haberman drives everything they report about Trump. Why would @jonathanchait view such a damning admission as a defense? It makes you wonder what worse reality it was intended to cover up.
(I guess one possibility is that Chait, who writes for @NewYorker not NYT, wanted to pretend he was defending Haberman, while actually indicting her. If so, his piece succeeded. There’s never been a hotter firestorm of criticism of her pro-Trump PR spin and its grip on NYT.
