Compare the first sentences in these stories about GroupChatghazi in WSJ, NYT, WaPo and The Guardian. The one that’s blunt about how big a deal this is, and which shows how harshly Dems condemned it, is from the UK paper. Dems do a lot wrong on their own, yes. But DC press? Tepid enablers. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

tvmojoe.bsky.social • 52 days ago

Compare the first sentences in these stories about GroupChatghazi in WSJ, NYT, WaPo and The Guardian. The one that’s blunt about how big a deal this is, and which shows how harshly Dems condemned it, is from the UK paper.

Dems do a lot wrong on their own, yes. But DC press? Tepid enablers.

1 / 4

Comments

knomercy.com•52 days ago

that NYT blurb is fucking MALPRACTICE (as usual)

pottersville.bsky.social•52 days ago

I had a journalist here on Bluesky give me the "that's not how it works" fingerwag when I said editors on corporate papers were softening headlines. Here it is, right here.

taliesinnola.bsky.social•52 days ago

Even the Guardian one, why is fucking Chris Coons giving them the benefit of the doubt? The whole conversation is illegal, there's no "accidentally" anywhere! FFS how are they so bad at this?!?

ndhapple.bsky.social•52 days ago

I'll actually take the WSJ lede (judging by the fonts)

tvmojoe.bsky.social•52 days ago

This one? Feels as if it’s describing a minor mistake and also gives zero credit to The Atlantic. Curious why you prefer it?

ndhapple.bsky.social•52 days ago

Clearly states the conversations should have been classified and weren't; were conducted over a non-government controlled messaging service and weren't; looped in a journalist who shouldn't have been. They put the credit to The Atlantic in the second graf, which is fine.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply