Seeing a lot of people comparing that terrible NYT article on Bernie Sanders finding a Soviet sister-city for Burlington in 1988 to the Clinton emails coverage, but I think a better analogue is the Clinton Foundation coverage.
Come in with the premise that something sinister happened, have that debunked over the course of your reporting, write it up with an insinuating tone anyway, include the exculpatory factually information deep in the article as the campaign's spin.
Is the premise here that Ronald Reagan was a dupe who allowed Soviet propaganda efforts to flourish? Because "both governments thought they were getting something out of the sister city programs" seems like a much more rational conclusion.
I wrote about this: mediamatters.org/new-york-times…
