Is that what they call it, when the offense comes from a government official?

Or is that just for “celebrities”?

Release the Miller tapes!

In addition to several quotes from the podcast story online, these are the quotes they used in the story based on the interview they did with Miller:

“The U.S. government has a sacred, solemn, inviolable obligation to enforce the laws of the United States to stop illegal immigration and to secure and protect the borders,” Mr. Miller said in a recent interview. Asked if the images of children being taken from their parents would eventually make the president back down, Mr. Miller was adamant.

“There is no straying from that mission,” he said.

“You have one party that’s in favor of open borders, and you have one party that wants to secure the border,” Mr. Miller said. “And all day long the American people are going to side with the party that wants to secure the border. And not by a little bit. Not 55-45. 60-40. 70-30. 80-20. I’m talking 90-10 on that.”

I'm not sure why the Times wouldn't use his voice in the podcast (they claim it's because they initially recorded the interview for a written story, not a podcast), but the idea that a journalist interviewed someone for an extended period of time (20 minutes? 30? Longer?) and used only a few quotes is standard procedure. It's also standard procedure to save all notes, recordings and other documentation from an interview, so it's there. My last documentary was 43 minutes finished, and we have dozens of hours of unused interview footage.

It would be illuminating to hear Miller's full comments, though, that's for sure.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2018, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

However, that obligation is far less scared, solemn and invioolable when it involves enforcing laws against collaborating with foreign governments to steal an election and undermine democracy. In those cases, we look the other way.

policy. They are too afraid to admit it is their policy

Fucking DONE with these corrupt, craven whores.

when they ran the headline "Trump Reinvents the Presidency," placing a positive spin on his cruel and shameless behavior. They know and understand the power and use of words, that's their business, and for them to use those words in that headline told me all I needed to know about the NYT. BTW, my husband and I have not missed that paper one bit.

Connie can't tweet "NYTimes" without "failing" in front of it. It's not like being nice to him is going to stop that.

...and expose all of Sarah, Neilsen and Trump's lies.

That tape is game, set and match on this issue.

if they think there could be evidence there

Every NYT reporter who appears on MSNBC or CNN should be asked about this.

This is earth shattering evidence that the separating of children from their parents was a deliberate policy hatched within the by Trump's inner circle, which he approved.

LET'S HEAR THE FUCKING TAPES.

Costing taxpayers too much money!

Put grandma in a cage!

or another news source who won't be bullied by the White House

that was leaked to the NY Times that Team Trump is asking them not to run...

Are the quotes and links in posts 7 and 16 not exactly what this post says does not exist?

Is a correction necessary?

The M$M media needs to stop running Dump statements as news

Run it.

onboard and I missed it?

Just the last couple of weeks, it seems like Trump is nastier and enjoying every minute of it. Between Miller and Ghouliani, it seems his rhetoric and thinking have been affected...more lies...more wrong thinking...more conspiracy...more hate.

Miller seems made to order for a Nazi movie.

Not like now where his ideas are being put in place. Nasty ideas, at that.

Trump senior adviser was at the center of the troubled first attempt, and his comments hint that the new Muslim ban’s underpinnings are one and the same

in terms of giving a scumbag a platform/legitimacy/etc versus shining a bright light on a cockroach. And that's a fine debate to have, a necessary one, and there is room for disagreement there.

What it totally beyond the pale is that the NYT buried these recordings AT THE REQUEST OF THE WHITE HOUSE. Making that decision *for that reason* is a betrayal of the public trust and once again demonstrates why the NYT is totally undeserving of its supposed reputation as "the paper of record."

Every reporter not working under cover is ethically obliged to report to a source exactly what the story is and how it might run.

For example, "I'm Jay School, and I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I'm working on a story where we're trying to figure out the genesis of this separation policy and we hope that you can speak on the record for us."

If the source then asks, "Where will this story run?" and the answer is "In our newspaper and online," then that might be construed as the source having given permission only to be quoted (for attribution) in a text-based story.

Because the Daily podcast is new, it may not be in the Times' reporters' regular modus operandi to say something like "Oh, and your quotes might also be part of our podcast if our editors want to highlight this story in that way."

So if that conversation didn't happen, and you later try to get that permission, and permission is denied, an ethical journalist will probably do what the Times did: use the quotes in the manner originally agreed to and for no other purpose.

Sometimes it's amazing the nefarious activities attributed to reporters who sometimes just need a reminder that some part of their jobs has changed, and their initial scripts and actions need to change to meet that new requirement.