Crossing a line from recklessness into madness, The New York Times
published a front-page opus suggesting that Russia was behind social
media criticism of Hillary Clinton, reports Robert Parry.
(CN)
For those of us who have taught journalism or worked as editors, a sign
that an article is the product of sloppy or dishonest journalism is
that a key point will be declared as flat fact when it is unproven or a
point in serious dispute – and it then becomes the foundation for other
claims, building a story like a high-rise constructed on sand.
This use of speculation as fact is something to guard against
particularly in the work of inexperienced or opinionated reporters. But
what happens when this sort of unprofessional work tops page one of The
New York Times one day as a major “investigative” article and reemerges
the next day in even more strident form as a major Times editorial? Are
we dealing then with an inept journalist who got carried away with his
thesis or are we facing institutional corruption or even a collective
madness driven by ideological fervor?
