Here are the media outlets most embarrassed by the Mueller report

[turbinetree]

Mueller's findings largely vindicated serious journalists' work, but outlets from The Nation to Fox News go home limping.
Casey Michel
Apr 24, 2019, 8:00 am

With last week’s release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s partially redacted report on the investigation into Russia’s election interference efforts and possible obstruction of justice, American media outlets that broke the news pertaining to the investigation have been largely vindicated.

But the most telling media misses — the ones that the Mueller report’s finding have blown to pieces — were stories and theories put forward by writers and outlets that exhausted their credibility by downplaying the questions addressed in the report, or who spun their own conspiracy theories in defense of the president.

There were some legitimate reporting efforts on Mueller’s investigations that missed the mark. BuzzFeed wrote incorrectly that President Donald Trump told his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress for him, and an ABC report claimed incorrectly that former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn said Trump had directly ordered him to contact Russian officials before the election.

But those who attempted to downplay Russian interference efforts have even more egg on their face following the release of the redacted Mueller report. Some of those are individuals like Matt Taibbi, who just a few weeks ago claimed that the media’s coverage of the the Mueller investigations was somehow on par with media coverage of Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction circa 2002-03.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-mueller-report-embarrassed-media-outlets-who-chased-after-russia-conspiracy-theories-dcec8049bbf9/

After reading the articles that the The Nation was publishing is the main reason why I did not renew my subscription and let it expire and I also wrote an email last year telling them of my displeasure, that is not The Nations business model from it's inception or ethos....................................

[cilla4progress]

1. Don't know what to think of this...

I'm disappointed in MSNBC, Maddow to be specific, I'm sorry to say. Though like the rest of us, she was likely duped on some level.

This bit about "oh Mueller knows so much more; what we are learning is just the tip of the iceberg...." Only to have the report come out and be essentially a rehash. Extremely disappointing. Will not be tuning in any longer.

[delisen]

2. I think of The Nation as a Russian Front magazine.

Publications are not always what they seem to be. The Nation has seemed to me to have had a history of excusing Soviet era evil and now that Russia is human rights disaster and oligarch factory, it still seems oddly ready to excuse it.

The much-loved and respected Paris Review for example had been CIA related and most readers did not have a clue.

From Wikipedia: (there re better sources)
" In 2007, an article published by The New York Times supported the claim that founding editor Matthiessen was in the CIA but stated that the magazine was used as a cover, rather than a collaborator, for his spying activities.[10] In a May 27, 2008 interview with Charlie Rose, Matthiessen stated that he "invented The Paris Review as cover" for his CIA activities.[11] Matthiessen maintained that the Review was not part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), an organization used by the CIA to sponsor an array of literary magazines; but the record shows The Paris Review benefited financially from selling article reprints to CCF magazines."

George Plimpton, another founder, was a dreadful elitist and class conscious snob who looked down upon anyone without an Ivy League degree at a time when legacy admissions was at it height.

Matthiessen however, went on to mainly redeem himself and I have certainly benefited from reading his works.

[moondust]

3. The Nation

Contributing Editor Stephen F. Cohen and Nation Editor and Publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel--married to Cohen--seem to be "Russiagate" apologists.