The New York Times has a problem with Russia. And the truth.
For more than three years, the Times pushed the false Trump-Russia collusion story, making the paper an accomplice in what amounted to a coup attempt against the 45th president.
For her sordid role, The Times, known as ‘The Gray Lady’, won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for writing about ‘Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its ties to the Trump campaign’ .
Last week, he did his best to ignore a bombshell court filing by special counsel John Durham. He said people connected to Clinton, at least one of whom now works for President Biden, hired technicians to hack Trump Tower and Mr. Trump’s residence in New York. They were mining data to create a scenario in which Mr. Trump colluded with the Russians to swing the 2016 election.
Worse, Durham said, they may have pulled data in 2017 from the president’s executive office at the White House.
The Clinton campaign also paid for the Steele dossier full of Russian misinformation that sparked the first impeachment trial. If anyone colluded with the Russians, it was the Clintons and the slavish American media.
In 1974, Richard Nixon was removed from office for covering up a burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington.
The Obama/Clinton/Biden scandal is worse, the latest being an electronic burglary of a candidate and the White House itself. It’s on par with the Obama and Biden administrations weaponizing US intelligence agencies — the NSA and CIA — against Donald Trump and the FBI targeting parents who protest school policies. And you thought Obama dumped the taxman on tea parties in 2010, that was wrong.
The Times was not alone in lacking curiosity about the Durham court filing. Virtually every major media outlet, including the Washington Post, ignored the story for days. But then they took a different approach, refuting its timeliness. On Friday, the Post buried it on page A-9, noting that the filing “added some details to Durham’s previous allegations.”
Like Hunter Biden’s outrageous deals in Ukraine and China, we’re told there’s nothing new to see here.
That’s how they swept Bill Clinton’s affairs with Gennifer Flowers and other women under the rug in the 1992 presidential election, dismissing them as “old news.”
The Pulitzers no longer have much to do with journalistic merit; the legacy media-dominated committee pays tribute to those in its ranks who advance the agenda of the left. In 2020, for example, Nikole Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer for her introductory essay at The New York Times’ “1619 Project” – a thoroughly debunked Marxist rewrite of America’s founding.
In-depth investigative reporting by conservative media has been virtually ignored. The Washington Times series on Clinton’s Chinagate scandal 30 years ago comes to mind, as do the groundbreaking reports from Project Veritas, James O’Keefe’s video sting operation.
Worse still than the current dishonesty of the New York Times regarding Russian “collusion” is how the paper landed its first Pulitzer.
Times Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty won in 1932 for reporting that all was well in the Soviet Union, even as Joseph Stalin was killing millions by starvation and execution.
“There is no actual starvation or starvation and there is no chance there will be,” Mr. Duranty wrote in November 1931. “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda”, he added in August 1933.
In 2008, The New York Times ran a front-page story implying that Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. No evidence was adduced and the story disappeared after Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain.
Last week, the Times’ lack of integrity was again on full display during Sarah Palin’s libel suit against the paper. The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican running mate in 2008 forcefully argued that the newspaper falsely accused her of a mass shooting.
The Times acknowledged the “error” and issued a retraction. But Ms. Palin said it was no accident; they had done it on purpose to smear it. The judge ordered a dismissal and the jury ruled on February 15 that she had not proven “actual malice”.
But it was clear: The Times had been caught falsifying facts to hurt a political enemy.
As the Gray Lady and others try to turn Durham’s findings into non-history, we shouldn’t be surprised.
They have a vital interest in suppressing revelations of Russian collusion. Working with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, the legacy media pushed a false narrative of betrayal.
Now that everything is clearing up, they are obsessed with the January 6 riot and are moving away from the scene of their own crimes against the truth.
That’s what Walter Duranty would have done.
• Robert Knight is a columnist for the Washington Times. His website is roberthknight.com.