WaPo, NY Times, CNN: Where Are the Leaks on Rice, Podesta Testimonies?

  

A couple of major news events occurred recently with almost no fanfare.  There were no “Breaking News” graphics announcing wall-to-wall coverage on the cable news channels, no “official” or “anonymous” sources leaked to the New York Times or Washington Post any of the intimate details.

It was like these events never happened.

“Ambassador Rice met voluntarily with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today as part of the Committee’s bipartisan investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election,” Rice’s spokesperson Erin Pelton said in a statement. “Ambassador Rice appreciates the Committee’s efforts to examine Russia’s efforts to interfere, which violated one of the core foundations of American democracy. She was pleased to cooperate with the investigation given its extraordinary national significance.”
ABC News, 7/21/17

Okay, it was a closed-door meeting. There’s barely a photo out there of Rice before or after her testimony. No news vans parked in front of her home and no aerial shots of her car going from Point A to B. Here’s your genuine nothing burger.

Since when has that stopped anyone involved to cup their mouth and whisper to someone at a friendly news organization? You mean to tell us there were no “officials” or someone who spoke “under condition of anonymity”? What make THIS time different than any of the leaks that involved the President of the United States?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, on Tuesday appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, which has begun interviewing witnesses in its probe of how Russia may have influenced the 2016 election.

Committee members declined to comment on the discussion to reporters as they left the panel’s secure hearing room. Podesta stopped and commented briefly.
Reuters, 6/27/17

No pictures or video of Podesta entering a House building. No one bothered to comment (leak) about the proceedings and it appears the media wasn’t interested in asking questions.

 

What this proves, yet again, is that the media really does have an agenda.

When they can try to damage President Trump, they will giddily report the hearsay of people who won’t go “on the record”, which also means “sources” could either be lying in order to smear or the reporters could actually be making the quotes up. It’s not like so-called journalists have ever been caught fabricating.

It also means when there could be news damaging to a Democrat, the media is quite capable of reporting the bare minimum, the “officials” and/or “anonymous” sources are suddenly quiet, and their preferred go home undisturbed.

Funny how that happens….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.