Read on Twitter
Access journalism can, still, shock.
This @maggieNYT story about Navarro is outrageous.
What is the news value? Why no context about Navarro ALWAYS saying cut off China?
This story is an act of internal politicking within the White House with no value for NYT readers.
1/
This @maggieNYT story about Navarro is outrageous.
What is the news value? Why no context about Navarro ALWAYS saying cut off China?
This story is an act of internal politicking within the White House with no value for NYT readers.
1/
Navarro is a very well-documented fringe idiot, liar, bad actor.
This story, as @maggieNYT knows better than most, is designed--by Navarro--to increase the power of his dumb ideas.
I assume she thinks she'll get good things from Navarro later.
2/
This story, as @maggieNYT knows better than most, is designed--by Navarro--to increase the power of his dumb ideas.
I assume she thinks she'll get good things from Navarro later.
2/
But what service is this story providing the reader?
We already knew that many people, with far more credibility, told Trump and others about the danger, earlier than Navarro.
Navarro is a stopped clock, his hands always pointing to China.
3/
We already knew that many people, with far more credibility, told Trump and others about the danger, earlier than Navarro.
Navarro is a stopped clock, his hands always pointing to China.
3/
If you read this article, knowing nothing about Navarro--as most people do--you would think he is some sage with deep medical knowledge and predictive powers.
If you know anything about Navarro, you would know that ain't so.
4/
If you know anything about Navarro, you would know that ain't so.
4/
I think I know what Maggie Haberman was going for here--access. But I don't understand what her editors were thinking. Did the words "context," "news value," "service to readers," come up?
I don't understand why there isn't a bigger price to pay for this kind of hackery.
5/
I don't understand why there isn't a bigger price to pay for this kind of hackery.
5/
BTW, I have decided NOT to pick twitter fights anymore.
But I do make an exception for Maggie Haberman because she is a big picker of twitter fights and has attacked me. So, I figure, I can get off my high horse for this one.
6/
But I do make an exception for Maggie Haberman because she is a big picker of twitter fights and has attacked me. So, I figure, I can get off my high horse for this one.
6/
I also think this is a profound issue in journalism.
Access journalism has a place. But it is far too dominant in this paper's coverage of this White House. It is, literally, killing people.
7/
Access journalism has a place. But it is far too dominant in this paper's coverage of this White House. It is, literally, killing people.
7/
Oh, and to preempt her repeated attack on me: yes, I was wrong when I wrote that Michael Cohen's arrest presaged the end of the Trump presidency.
I was doing this thing where I was having independent thoughts and writing out my argument with the evidence I saw.
8/
I was doing this thing where I was having independent thoughts and writing out my argument with the evidence I saw.
8/
Every reader was able to assess my claims and the process by which I came to them--it was all clear and transparent--and then come to their own conclusion.
It's risky--sometimes your independent analysis doesn't stand the test of time.
9/
It's risky--sometimes your independent analysis doesn't stand the test of time.
9/
