Thread by @nycsouthpaw

Around this time four years ago, NYT made a huge deal of Uranium One--an ultimately banal story of the sale of equity in a company that owned a company that had a US uranium mine. But you wouldn't have known it from the Times's initial bungled reporting. (nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/…)

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1175155103847845893

The Uranium One story has many of the hallmarks of this Biden stuff. It's the product of heavy investment by conservatives interested in influencing politics--in the Uranium One case the Mercers. And it bubbled along via assurances like the ones Vogel gives in that clip.

Just you wait, they said, there's more to be told, big news just around the bend. But like, there wasn't. It was just smoke. The Mercer-backed theory of the case never made sense. This episode is a good explainer. itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/arm…

Many of us called for the New York Times to evaluate its flawed reporting on the Uranium One story, the email story, etc., in the hopes that it wouldn't happen again. But they did not do that. And now they have reporters on tv talking up stories they haven't got, again.

Perhaps it'll come together for them this time. What's so frustrating about debating a story before it's reported is you don't quite know. But the Ukrainians have said there's nothing to see there. And NYT does not have the story now, and their track record sucks.

The NYT put this quote in the 2015 piece. It's insane!!! The US had been importing uranium *from Russia* for 20 years before they started reporting on this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_…

That's why "nobody's talking about it." Because your source is padded walls crazy.

I can’t get over the manic energy in his eyes at 0:15.

Anyway, read this: mediaite.com/news/nyts-ken-…

Friday cable tv hit: “THERE IS A STORY HERE.”

Sunday explainer: “There is uhhhmm no story here, as I HAVE BEEN SAYING SINCE THIS SPRING.” nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/…