SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
WaPo Spins Its Scoop to Minimize Damage to Sessions
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Mar 02, 2017
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.