In an explosive op-ed published Tuesday, NPR Business Editor-in-Chief Uli Berliner acknowledged that the public radio station’s Russiagate coverage was a failure, calling out “Russian collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. He admitted that the report was a huge failure as he could not find it.
Berliner also acknowledged that then-California Senate candidate Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) served as the news organization’s “guidance man” in this futile effort, giving the news organization a wagon ride. He expressed regret that he was allowed to board the train. Mr. Schiff was the main promoter of the Russia collusion hoax in Congress, repeatedly claiming there was “circumstantial evidence” of collusion.
Berliner, in an editorial published I wrote in the Free Press that the rise of advocacy at NPR “began” with the election of former President Donald Trump in 2016.
“Like many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mix of disbelief, anger and despair,” he wrote. “But what started as tough, honest reporting on a bellicose and untruthful president has veered into an effort to damage or even topple the Trump presidency.”
He said “persistent rumors” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia “became a catalyst for reporting.”
“At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible opponent, Congressman Adam Schiff,” Berliner wrote, adding:
Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s mentor and ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. In many of those conversations, Mr. Schiff implied there was evidence of collusion. Schiff’s talking points became the drumbeat of NPR News reporting.
But when special counsel Robert Mueller found “no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s reporting was noticeably tenuous,” Berliner wrote.
“Russiagate has quietly disappeared from our programming,” he wrote, admonishing NPR’s newsroom.
“It’s one thing to be swayed by an important story, it’s another to miss it. Unfortunately, it happens. We follow the wrong clues, we get misled by sources we trusted, we get emotionally invested in the story, and it happens.” “Sometimes pieces of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s not good to make a fuss about the big story,” he said.
“Worse is to pretend nothing happened and move on without any guilt or remorse. Especially when we expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions. , especially when you don’t live up to those standards yourself. That shatters trust and breeds cynicism toward the media,” he continued.
NPR wasn’t the only news outlet to delve into the fake Russian collusion allegations. The allegations began as an anti-Trump investigation funded by anti-Trump Republicans and the Hillary Clinton campaign, then spread through government channels and then became the government’s “road map.” FBI investigation into Trump campaign.
reporter new york times And that washington post Both men won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for their reporting on the false Russian collusion hoax.
As Hans A. von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation I have written After Russian collusion was thoroughly exposed, a 2021 article on FoxNews.com said:
In a series of 10 articles, Times reporters spread a story detailing a fictitious relationship between the Kremlin, the Trump campaign, the president’s transition team, and the administration.
Mueller’s investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence that President Trump or his staff colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Special Counsel John Durham is currently indicting some of the individuals involved in creating what amounts to a political hoax that dogged the Trump administration for years.
Despite these findings and the inaccuracies in the Times article, the Pulitzer Prize Board did not rescind the award. (Note that all principals are alive and fully responsive.)
Von Spakovsky pointed out that: times Reporter Walter Duranty also won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of articles praising the Soviet Union and its dictator Joseph Stalin for relying on Soviet propaganda and covering up genocide.
Von Spakovsky pointed out that: times He did not issue a formal apology until 2003.
“Will it be 2089 when the New York Times (and Washington Post) admit and apologize for their misleading reporting? And the Pulitzer Prize Board will wait until all the principals are dead to “investigate” the problem. ” and then announce a non-apology? ” he wrote.
Follow Christina Wong’s X on Breitbart News. society of truth,or Facebook.
