New York Times scrambles to fix ‘almost entirely wrong’ Russia scoop after Comey testimony

New York Times scrambles to fix ‘almost entirely wrong’ Russia scoop after Comey testimony

The New York Times is “looking into” whether one of its big Russia scoops is actually true, after former FBI Director James Comey disputed the report in his testimony before Congress Thursday.

The paper of record reported Feb. 14 that U.S. intelligence officials had intercepted repeated communications between the Trump campaign and senior Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the election. The news firmly planted the as yet totally unsubstantiated narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to sway the election in his favor.

But Comey characterized the report as almost entirely false in his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and The Times is now reviewing the report in light of his statements. “We are looking into James Comey’s statements, and we will report back with more information as soon as we can,” TheNYT tweeted following the hearing, after prominent journalists highlighted Comey’s statement.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

“In the main, it was not true,” Comey testified Thursday. He added that when the news broke, he was so troubled that he actually double-checked with the intelligence community to make sure he wasn’t missing something.

Asked again about the story later in the hearing, Comey reiterated that it was unfounded.

“Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?” Republican Sen. [score]Tom Cotton[/score] asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

TheNYT sourced the report to four “former and current officials,” who were likely politically motivated, or as Comey suggested in the hearing may not have had a proper understanding of the “facts” they were dishing out to the paper.

“The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information — is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on,” Comey said. “And those of us that know what’s going on aren’t talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, ‘hey, you got that thing wrong about that sensitive topic.’ We just have to leave it there.”

The Times is not the only mainstream outlet whose unnamed sources have been challenged by Comey’s testimony. It was noted in these pages yesterday that CNN issued a “correction” to a story the network published based on assurances from an unnamed source that Comey was expected to refute Trump. CNN was being disingenuous in calling the change a correction, which is usually reserved for names, dates, and the like. At least CNN was willing to acknowledge it had dropped the ball. Not so the The Times, which just as this post was going to press released a fresh statement and published an article noting the paper stands by its story and that a review found “no evidence” the reporting was inaccurate.

Here is the statement contained in a tweet:

The paper concedes that the sources on which the story is based could not be reached in the examination process, but says reports in other outlets (also based on anonymous sources) have confirmed their reporting. The paper also speculates Comey was taking issue with the definition of “Russian intelligence official” and notes he did not say “exactly” what was wrong with the story.

This report, by Rachel Stoltzfoos, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.