A crushing commentary on the NY Times feature about the Russians hacking

Hmmm. one might almost say "Fake News"? I read Ann Althouse blog almost every day - she just retired from her law professor position at the University of Wisconsin (Madison). She is middle of the road politically. This from Althouse yesterday about the widely publicized NYT article.

The NYT headline says "C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence" and I'm instantly skeptical about whether what's in the article supports that headline.

Now, let's get down to the work of checking to see whether the NYT really presents evidence to justify that headline. I'm reading every word of the rather long article but will only give you the actual evidence offered for the proposition that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election for the purpose of helping Donald Trump win. There's a lot of material in the article that is not about that at all. I'm excluding that, which is padding if the headline is the correct headline. Go to the link if you want to see what it is.

The first relevant material comes in the 16th paragraph: The DNC's servers and John Podesta's email account were hacked and a lot of damaging and embarrassing material was released onto the internet....

******

That's no swell of evidence! That's a lot of leaping guesswork. And this is nothing more than I already read in the article the NYT put out on December 9th, which I put effort into combing through and rejected for the same reasons I'm putting in this new post.

This might be the biggest fake news story I've ever seen!

******

Speaking of embarrassing material... that headline, with that content... in the NYT. So awful. 

If you read her whole post - she really crushes the Times article.

Comments

[maria]

Thanks for posting this one.