Judge confirms Barr lied about Mueller report — will New York Times apologize for spreading that lie?

A media low point

  
--:--
--:--

If you’d prefer to listen to today’s newsletter, click play.


It was one year ago this week I first asked readers to support PRESS RUN by purchasing a subscription. If you haven’t, please consider. Much thanks!

Stay healthy

Be kind.

Subscribe to PRESS RUN


A "powerful boost."

That's how the New York Times in March 2019 famously described Attorney General William Barr's supposed exoneration of Trump following Barr's reading of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Refusing to release the sprawling report, Barr instead put out a thin, four-page press release where he brazenly lied about Mueller's contents, and claimed Trump was in the clear.

It was an audacious move by Barr, and it worked because the Beltway press eagerly played along, reporting that Trump's Russia worries were not only over, but that Mueller's unseen conclusions had given Trump's re-election a "powerful boost."

This week, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court in Washington confirmed Barr lied about the Mueller report:

From the Washington Post:

[Berman] blasted Barr’s four-page letter to Congress in March 2019 that said the special counsel did not draw a conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed the investigation and that Barr’s own opinion was that the evidence was insufficient to bring such a charge.

In reality, Mueller’s report laid out evidence of obstruction but said the special counsel could not fairly make a charging decision, given department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Even in real time, the news coverage of the Mueller report and Barr's crooked summary of it stood out as one of the low points of the Trump presidency in terms of a systemic press failure. It was stupefying to watch grown men and women at elite news outlets treat Barr as a serious, honest person; to treat the story as truthful simply because it involved the U.S. Attorney General.

Support PRESS RUN

Support PRESS RUN

Three years into Trump's ransacking of democracy, and after three years of watching Republicans completely disregard the truth, journalists foolishly played along with the charade, running in front of cameras to announce Trump had been "exonerated," without having a read a single sentence of the Mueller report. Overnight, journalists collectively decided that a four-page summary—typed up by a partisan GOP official who had promised Trump he'd never been indicted —was the same thing as seeing the special counsel’s findings. It was truly astonishing.

Now that a federal judge has confirmed that the press got played, badly, what's the media response going to be? Will there by any introspection, will editors and producers reflect on how and why they got taken for a ride on one of the most important news stories of 2019? Will there be any transparency with readers and an apology, along with an explanation for what went so terribly wrong in March, 2019?

The likely answer is no to all those questions, because when it comes to being honest and open about grave blunders the press made while covering Trump, there's no appetite for it, except when the criticism comes from conservatives screaming "liberal media bias." There was never any soul searching from the Beltway media for its colossal failure from the 2016 campaign, when it treated Hillary Clinton's emails as if they were Watergate + Iran Contra. Or the way the press conveniently obliterated policy coverage while Trump ran a policy-free campaign.  

At the head of the apology line ought to be the Times, which sent an immediate message to the Beltway with its "powerful boost" proclamation, and announcing the Russia “cloud” had been “lifted” from the White House. Times columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote an entire piece that referred to the findings of the Mueller report, even though nobody at the newspaper had seen it. "Robert Mueller seems to have concluded after a definitive investigation, Mr. Trump’s win was not the illegitimate product of a treasonous conspiracy," he wrote [Emphasis added].

He also mocked "the aggrieved and embarrassed #resistance-tweeting punditocracy" for “downplaying Mr. Mueller's findings,” even though Majoo had no idea what Mueller's "findings" were. Additionally, the paper matter-of-factly detailed, "The Mueller Report’s Findings," as if those were verifiable things at the time. Reminder: No reporter had read the report at that time.

Of course, it wasn't just the Times that fell on its face treating Barr's obfuscation as fact. CNN's Chris Cillizza labeled it, "A credible and well investigated report that [Trump] nor his campaign colluded with the Russians," while NBC's Ken Dilian announced it was a "total exoneration" of Trump.

Journalists who typically demand access to documents when evaluating investigations made sweeping conclusions based on the Barr press release. The "Mueller report is out," CBS News announced, even though nobody at CBS News had read it. Stonewalling Republicans refused to release the Russia investigation findings, but the Washington Post at the time insisted it was Democrats who lookrf bad because they "boxed themselves in" on the Russia story.

Rather than going with accurate headlines, such as "Trump's Attorney General Claims Mueller Has Cleared the President," newsrooms tossed context aside and embraced GOP-friendly proclamations: "Mueller Finds No Conspiracy" (Washington Post), "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy" (New York Times)," Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy" (Politico), "Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired with Russia" (Wall Street Journal), "Mueller Finds No Trump Collusion, Leaves Obstruction Open" (Associated Press).

None of those headlines were accurate, and they did extraordinary damage because they allowed the White House to proclaim victory. "This was an illegal takedown that failed," Trump bragged at the time. "It’s complete exoneration. No collusion."

Beltway journalists failed in so many ways during the Trump years. It’s time for them to acknowledge that.

Subscribe to PRESS RUN

(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

🎤 GOOD STUFF:

From The Washingtonian’sThe Awkward Feeling of Rooting for the White House Press Secretary,” by Jessica Goldstein:

Psaki succeeds by arguably doing the impossible: Her face and voice beam out of our screens on a regular basis, and she rarely draws attention to herself. She’s the highest-visibility yet lowest-profile member of the administration. If the measure of modern cultural penetration is how much someone has been memed, all Psaki has is her oft-repeated promise to “circle back” being made into some supercuts. (The thing is, she does circle back. “If it’s not her, it’s somebody from the staff,” says Doocy. “We will hear within a couple of hours.”)

Follow me on Twitter

🪗 FUN STUFF — BECAUSE WE ALL NEED A BREAK

The Wallflowers, “Roots and Wings”

On Wednesday, I highlighted new music from Counting Crows, today I continue with the 90’s theme with a fresh offering from The Wallflowers, their first new music in almost a decade.

As Far Out put it, “Folksy, hooky, and directly indebted to classic rock, it has all the features you’d want, and expect, from a Wallflowers song, down to [Jacob] Dylan’s inimitable rasp waxing poetic about flighty romances.”

And now you've got your looks and your pretty things
And a new set of chances that I wouldn't give
Now if you've forgotten, well I'll tell you again
That I gave you roots, baby, I gave you wings

🎙 Click here to listen to the music that’s been featured on PRESS RUN, via a Spotify playlist.

Click hereto listen via Apple Music.

Share PRESS RUN