Read on Twitter
Here, the ACTUAL LEAD of a @peterbakernyt / @maggieNYT story is that Trump *moved quickly* to deny a damning report.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/us/politics/trump-veterans-losers.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/us/politics/trump-veterans-losers.html
¶6 says the report could be problematic because he might not get voters he wants.
It doesn't say it's problematic bc he's commander in chief with certain duties, including leading the military.
It doesn't say it's problematic bc he's commander in chief with certain duties, including leading the military.
It's not until ¶9 that the NYT tells you THEY'VE GOT CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for the claims in the Atlantic story.
Given that they have corroborating evidence for the claim, why is the lead not, "Trump lied in an attempt to deny the story"?
Given that they have corroborating evidence for the claim, why is the lead not, "Trump lied in an attempt to deny the story"?
¶17, Peter and Maggie let Trump repeat claims that were debunked at the time, without consulting the meterological data that would still debunk the claims.
¶18: Both sidesing the claim with claims that don't make sense on their face.
¶20, Baker LINKS TO ONE OF HIS OWN ARTICLES, in which he told part of this story in real time.
In spite of the fact that they claim that veterans care is part of Trump's campaign pitch, they don't fact check how Trump has claimed credit for some stuff McCain did.
