The bombshell media reports about the Trump-Russia probe habitually put the incriminating information front and center, while burying mitigating information deep within the article.
The New York Times is by far the worst offender, though other publications, such as Reuters, aren’t immune.
The evidence speaks for itself. Here are seven examples, listed below:
1. The New York Times: “Top Russian Officials Discussed How To Influence Trump Aides Last Summer”
The first four paragraphs lead the reader into a spy-novel narrative, creating suspicion that the Kremlin infiltrated the highest levels of the American government. “American spies collected information” the piece begins, “revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers.”
Buried in the fifth paragraph, the reporter was forced to admit they had no evidence that Russian officials actually tried to influence Trump aides.
“It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn.”
2. The New York Times: “F.B.I Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms”
The reader had to meander through 10 paragraphs chronicling a “treacherous” moment for President Donald Trump to finally reach the kicker:
“American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia …”
3. The New York Times: “Ex-C.I.A. Chief Reveals Mounting Concern Over Trump Campaign and Russia”
A person has to parse though six paragraphs of “mounting concerns,” and “suspicious contacts” between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Finally, the Times acknowledged the Former CIA Director John Brennan “did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign.”
4. Reuters: “Exclusive: Trump Campaign Had At Least 18 Undisclosed Contacts With Russians: Sources”
Any reader that did not make it past the fifth paragraph would think it was an impeachable offense. “[A] dvisors to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties” Reuters reported.
By the sixth paragraph, Reuters reports that “the people who described the contacts” had “seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.”
5. The New York Times: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”
The lengthy piece was largely dedicated to reporting on “intercepted communications” that were “captured” by the National Security Agency, building a case of collusion against the Trump campaign.
One lone sentence revealed that “the officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”
6. The New York Times: “Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation”
The Times broke into a 15 paragraph essay focusing on Trump as an obstructionist.
Any reader willing to the make it through the first 13 paragraphs soon finds out that “officials have testified that they have so far seen no evidence of collusion.”
By 15th paragraph, TheNYT reports that the acting FBI director “said there had been no effort by the White House to impede the inquiry.”
7. The New York Times: “Trump Jr. Was Told In Email Of Russian Effort To Aide Campaign”
A report of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a “Kremlin-connected” lawyer possessing information acquired from the Russian government attempting to aide his father’s candidacy, was treated as if illegality was a foregone conclusion
TheNYT waited until the fourth paragraph before admitting “there is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking …”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.