Answers to Readers’ Questions on Our Coverage of the Russia Investigation

BRAVO for the NyTimes for taking the weighty job of jornalism seriously!!! In these decadent, jaded times where "Infotainment", lies rumours, exaggerations and highly-slanted faux (or is that "Foxy"....) pseudo-journalism rules and poisons the minds of so many, the Times has continued to do what a newspaper SHOULD be doing - and that's to not only report the news with as little bias as possible, but to also be a force for change for the better, within society. The Meuller investigation is an excellent case in point: massive, skilled and systematic interference in the democratic process by a hostile foreign power had at least in part facilitated the election of a divisive, rogue president and an uber-partisan House of Representatives who let him do whatever he pleased. Finding out the details of how this happened, and how much active collusion and other lawbreaking was involved at the highest levels, was a task the Times took on with great rigor.... again: Bravo!!

I keep waiting for a news outlet to hear what I seem to have heard Mr Mueller say. I think I am correct in that I heard him say: "I could not" instead of "I "would not", in regard to pressing charges against President Trump. This is what I came away with. He made an effort to tell us that he could not press charges in the introductions to the two parts of his report. Muller is not a person who is a great public orator, and I have waited too long to think someone who works with language would point this out.

Seeing some distinct parallels between Barr's exoneration of the Trump administration and the Times's exoneration of its own reporting.

Always a red flag for me when an organization sets up an internal audit function and finds nothing wrong. It may or may not represent bias, but by not at least finding something real to criticize, it certainly gives the perception of bias. When accused of bias, either utilize a third party and the scientific method, or find some on your own to learn from. Perception is reality.

This is embarrassing.

Isn’t this the kind of issue that cries out for bringing back the Public Editor? Mr. Purdue has set out a defense of The Times’s coverage; what is wanted now is an impartial judgment.

The answers given here reflect a bias that is undeniable. The thrust of the answers is justification and excuses, not actual self-reflection. This is particularly egregious in the areas of the headline regarding Barr’s initial summary of the Mueller report and in the reflection regarding the Trump campaign involvement with the Russians Headlines set the overall tone of an article. You may feel that information buried deep within the article create a full accounting, but the nuance needs to be IN the headline, not in paragraph 17. In both cases, the headline might reflect one aspect of the facts, but ignores other equally true facts, conveying a message that in both cases was biased and ultimately inaccurate. You are not well qualified to judge your own actions. Self reflection is fine, but thinking it is enough is arrogant and dismissive of your readers and interferes with the ability to improve. BRING BACK AN OMBUDSMAN. You desperately need one and we your readers deserve the respect and support of that role.

Are you not aware that most people only read headlines? Your job is to make headlines just as accurate as the body of the article. The fact that you STILL haven’t amended the “no clear link” headline shows the utter abdication of your responsibility as a top tier news source. When you are challenged, all you do is roll out your news editor to say “maybe we were wrong, but actually we weren’t”. It has gotten beyond tedious. You absolutely must restore your ombudsman position and put someone in that role who can actually challenge the editorial hierarchy. You dropped the ball so badly in 2016 and show no interest whatsoever in improving your conduct for 2020. The utter lack of curiosity you demonstrate for your own failings and the dismissiveness with which you hand-wave away any legitimate criticism shows how achingly devoid you are of any awareness of the responsibility you fritter away daily. Ombudsman now, or be remembered as the track-greasers of autocracy forever.

This piece seems purposely buried in late Friday, when it addresses important questions, including the infamous pre-election story clearing Trump of Russian contacts (the party line continues that only the headline was off, thought he whole piece, published right before the election, raised substantial questions, to be generous. Additionally, the way it addresses the overemphasis on the Clinton email non-"scandal'' is disingenuous. Yes, it was newsworthy and needed to be covered, but not as prominently or with as little skepticism, particularly when a parallel investigation of much greater import into the Trump investigation merited greater attention. This from the greatest newspaper in the world (still); very disappointing. The official explanation offered here is unconvincing: Are we really to believe that the Times' massive investigative staff and ace reporters were unaware of the Russia prole, what the details were and how serious a threat it was to the election. Hard to countenance, particularly given the prominent vindication offered to Trump in the afore-mentioned pre-election story.. No balance, or proportion to the email overcoverage, as Grace Slick might say, and no real explanations for the lapses. The paper badly needs a Public Editor - the last one was fired, it was widely believed, because she took on the Russian lapses directly, to the consternation of Dean Baquet and others. Even great papers make mistakes. But confession is good for the soul.

The question was, "were we sufficiently skeptical, in our initial coverage, about Mr. Barr's analyses and motives?" Mr. Purdy's answer: "There is no question what the top-line news was in Attorney General William P. Barr’s four-page summary of conclusions of the Mueller report: President Trump and his aides had not been found to have coordinated with the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election." This response does not answer the question. At the time the Barr letter was released, there was more than enough reason to suspect that the "top-line news" of the letter would not be the same as the "top-line news" of the report. As it turns out, they are not the same. Now that we have seen the report, we know that obstacles to the investigation impaired Mueller's ability to gather facts on Russian conspiracy, such that he could not rule out the possibility that unavailable facts might "shed a new light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report." (vol. I, p. 10) This is a far cry from definitively concluding that no conspiracy, coordination or collusion occurred, and much closer to concluding that obstruction did - for which Mueller made a more complete case, in Volume II. The public knew enough at the time Barr released his letter to suspect that it concealed the report's "top-line news." The Times' headlines and reporting leaned more toward taking the letter at face value than "sufficient skepticism."

Your columnists and reporters are quoting experts, members of Congress, and others on the Mueller Report, as well on Mr. Mueller’s recent statement about it. How are they verifying that the persons quoted actually read it? Thank you.

Robert Mueller says it is all in the report. But the report remains redacted. If many parts of it are concealed under black lines it can't be read. Everybody knows that meat of the report is under those black lines.

I want to go back to the 2016 campaign and ask - Why is anyone from a presidential candidate's team talking to a foreign government official about the US presidential election!!! This undermines the existing Presidential administration and should not be allowed. Mueller's conclusion that there was not coordination between the Russian's and the Trump campaign is very generous and open to a much different interpretation. Mr Stone? What steps are being taken to prevent this from happening in 2020?

This article seems to me to be more than a little self-serving. The worst part was the way the New York Times gave far more coverage to the email issue involving Mrs. Clinton than to any or all of the either immoral or illegal actions of Mr. Trump and his campaign. There was not even a hint that the leaked emails from the Democratic Party were engineered by Russia with the connivance of Julian Assange to assist Trump get elected. The false equivalencies that we saw aplenty in the 2016 campaign...predominantly excusing Mr. Trump from righteous scrutiny for his draft-dodging, his lying, his racist past, his sexual assaults and his sexual affairs affairs are still very evident in the way the Times seeks to excuse itself for it every poor reporting of the way AG Barr twisted the Mueller to say virtually the opposite of what Mr. Mueller reported. Given the indictments and convictions that came out of the Mueller investigation it was irresponsible to give any credence to Barr's tortured summary of the Mueller Report. At the least, the Times should have held off adopting any of Barr's interpretations until the redacted report came out. A clear apology for its failures would have been a much better approach than the edited version of the truth we see here today.