Thread by @HoarseWisperer

This is that the disease of “Access Journalism” looks like.

Story by Maggie Haberman.

Read the piece and then ask yourself...

1/

nytimes.com/2017/05/28/us/…

Did that piece convey that the subject:

1) Was appointed through nepotism
2) Has no relevant experience or credentials
3) Was caught trying to set up a back-channel to Russia
4) Was known to be lobbying foreign govs for financing
5) Has achieved nothing of note in the WH

2/

When a piece written about arguably the most scandal- and conflict-plagued WH hire in recent memory reads like a “day in the life”, something is deeply wrong.

This is the cancer of “Access Journalism”.

It taints and softens the reporting.

3/

It influences topics and tenor. It turns journalists into servants of competing masters: the public that relies on them and the subjects they rely on for access.

4/

Insiderism isn’t an effective form of journalism...

...and right now, it’s the only form being practiced by the NYT’s White House correspondents.

Meanwhile, as their coverage is weakened and degraded, those same correspondents are writing a book...

5/

If ever there were a conflict of interest in journalism, it would be profiteering off access to people who only provide it in return for less than unvarnished coverage.

The Times WH desk has an integrity problem - and that means all of us have a problem.

This won’t do.
<end>

p.s. ugh. damn typos and no edit feature. I hate you sometimes, Twitter.