I’m Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate


Tin-foil wrapped coverage of alleged Trump/Russia collusion in The Irish Times from last August (top) and last December (above).

“Russiagate” has been a news media obsession since Trump’s victory in November 2016.

The nonpartisan Tyndall Report pegged the total amount of time devoted to the story on the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC last year at 332 minutes, making it the second-most covered story after the Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

According to a count by the Republican National Committee released Sunday, The Post, the New York Times, CNN.com and MSNBC.com have written a combined 8,507 articles mentioning the special counsel’s investigation.

The cable news networks, particularly CNN and MSNBC, have added hundreds of hours of discussion about the topic, too.

The story undoubtedly was an important factor in shaping voters’ perceptions before the 2018 midterm election, in which Democrats won control of the House.

But the conclusion of the inquiry has put a question once hazily debated into sharp focus: Did the mainstream news media mislead?

Only YOU can decide.

Conclusion of Mueller probe raises anew criticisms of coverage (Washington Post)

Saturday: ‘Closing In’

Sponsored Link

36 thoughts on “I’m Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate

  1. senbob

    How much time was devoted to Hillary’s emails?
    How many house investigations of Benghazi? 11 I think?

    How many years did Ken Starr investigate the Clintons in the 90’s? 7/8 years was it?
    A special counsel investigation on a land deal. What did he find? nothing, oh a blowjob.

    And if Donald is totally exonerated, as he claims, then he should have no objection to releasing the full report. He said he wanted it released in full just last week.

    1. Sham Bob

      Exactly – this is just the Dems having their revenge for Benghazi, and a lot of wishful thinking. It does seem to have backfired spectacularly though. Not so much the investigation itself, but putting so much faith in it, rather than into investigating what his administration were up to policy-wise. It’s ended up being a gift to Trump.

    1. pedeyw

      Also all that corruption from Donnie’s minions. 34 indictments. Not that any of that will convince the cult of personality he bafflingly has going on.

    2. Holden MaGroin

      About 7 (May actually be more) separate US agencies declared that they did and Trump disagreed with them.

        1. jusayinlike

          You mentioned conclusions not a particular report.

          My comment referenced previous conclusions he has made.

          1. ReproBertie

            So not in this report which concluded that the Russians interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.

          2. ReproBertie

            So what are you suggesting? That we should take the conclusions of the report on collusion with a pinch of salt?

        2. ReproBertie

          Wow, so you think we should be suspicious of the “No collusion” findings? I was never in any doubt that Trump was Putin’s preferred candidate, hence the interference, but I never really thought they were working together. Pretty ballsy move on your part to cast doubt on the report’s conclusions.

          1. jusayinlike

            There you go again, shoving words that were never said..

            desperate to smear..

            What was Mueller’s report investigating again Bertie?

            Here’s Adam Schiff, ranked democrat on the house Intel committee being humbled..


          2. ReproBertie

            So you’re not saying that Mueller’s report, which confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 US election, is questionable?

          3. ReproBertie

            I don’t understand why you keep trying to change the subject. Either you believe we can trust the findings of the Mueller report or you don’t.

          4. ReproBertie

            You’re still trying to change the subject. Either Mueller’s report can be trusted or it can’t.

          5. jusayinlike

            Ive stated I’ll answer, I’m merely asking you to go first..

            Were the DNC servers examined by any state body?

          6. rotide

            He clearly posed that question before you manfully tried to deflect Jusayin.

            just admit you painted yourself into a corner and move on.

          7. jusayinlike

            I haven’t painted myself in a corner but I understand why you want to move along editor..

            I don’t believe there was any collusion or Russian interference.

            Mueller found no collusion after ferreting through Trumps affairs for 2 years. That is undeniable and his indictments of various individuals for process crimes are immaterial to his overall brief.

            Mueller claims Russian interference regardless of the lack of collusion. The interference is based on the DNC being allegedly meddled with by Russian trolls.

            My question to you was whether the DNC servers were examined by any state body to assess the level and method of interference and if not how can Mueller allege interference?

          8. ReproBertie

            So you think Mueller is correct on the bits you like but incorrect on the bits you don’t?

  2. V for Frilly

    Ahhhhh lads
    This had the potential to be a savage thread
    A runaway
    With loadsa lols and sloppy keyboards

    Is it cause tis a Monday

    Did yis have a falling out over yere new avatars

    Sum’tings up with ye
    Tell yere Aunty Frilly

  3. Lobster

    The report didn’t find collusion, but that doesn’t mean no interference right?
    I know you’ll say it’s not how you intend it, but you really seem delighted for trump. Which is shameful. He’s a racist sexist imbecile, and you come across as supporting him. And while it appears to be just Bodger, the hosting team are all responsible.
    Look at how any authoritarian government starts, look at the things he says, and feel shame.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link