Put two and two together here and you can very quickly understand why the Times was working the story slowly and carefully, and then had their spot blown up by Winnie Greco handing a different reporter a chip bag of cash. Try to understand how this could work.
It could have worked like that but given the Times' ownership track record, the odds that it did work like this are microscopic.
The much better criticism is their gung-ho approach to laundering a neo-Nazi's hacked materials on Mamdani's Columbia application. Clearly, they were working on a post-Labor Day story here.
It was kind of assumed more indictments were going to come from the Eastern District and he related to Greco… until November that is.
There is a substantive critique about how the Times undermines its very good reporters with editorial decisions like the Zohran/Columbia story, but asking why they reported this the way that they did tells me that you don’t know how reporting works and I’m going to have to push back on that.
I think you’re begging for people to give good faith to an organization that through their previous reporting has done enormous damage to whatever ability folks had to extend that to them. The Mamadani story was breathless and rushed, and this was not, for whatever reason.
Trust is earned and is difficult to earn back when blatant, ugly ideological stuff like that makes it apparent what the Bosses are into and what they want to see in the paper. People would believe these explanations if they believed the NYT was even attempting objective work. But we don’t believe.
The double standard does speak to how reporting is done at the times though. There’s a double standard!
Yes. But I also think it was necessary for the Times to have explained in their red-envelope story why they hadn't published it yet.