New York Times Still Can't Admit It Botched a Major Trump Story Before the Election

Eight days before the 2016 presidential election, the New York Times ran a story throwing cold waters on burgeoning conspiracy theorists. Its headline read: "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I Sees No Clear Link to Russia."


As we now know, that story was deeply misleading and inaccurate. But the Times has still not addressed how it got things so wrong. 

The story notes that the FBI had started an investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the summer of 2016, but it says there was no "conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government." 

But we now know the probe began with a pretty definitive link: Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos made contact with a man claiming to be a Russian agent who said he had hacked emails related to Hillary Clinton.

The story also claims that while the Russians were trying to interfere in the 2016 election, the FBI did not believe the Russians were trying to help Trump. However, as former FBI Director James Comey said in an interview with the New Yorker, the bureau had already had concluded that the Kremlin wanted Trump to win.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told the Washington Post"I think the headline was off but if you read the story I think it was NOT inaccurate based on what we knew at the time."

But the story was inaccurate, as we now know, and the Times should be willing to own up to that fact.

The paper continually does extraordinary reporting, and it has produced many essential stories as the Trump-Russia saga has unfolded. Utilizing anonymous sources is a difficult business, and yet the Times frequently employs them to great effect. But errors in this kind of reporting are inevitable, and when they happen, it's the paper's responsibility to explain why they happened and what went wrong.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close