MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2026
We'd say the answer is yes: The president's erratic behavior has continued all through this day. That said, we want to explore the claim that news orgs in Blue America may sometimes "sift" the news.
For the record, what happens when a news org "sifts" the news—when a news org engages in selective reporting? For starters, such news orgs may report the facts which align with preferred tribal storylines, while possibly failing to report other relevant facts which don't.
In this morning's report, we discussed a fairly obvious bit of "sifting" by the Fox News Channel—more specifically, by the trio of friends who co-host the four-hour morning show, Fox & Friends Weekend. Now, let's turn to the corresponding news report in yesterday's New York Times.
We refer to yesterday's front-page report about the death of Robert Mueller. The lengthy report—essentially, it was an obituary—was written by Tim Weiner, a former national security correspondent for the Times and a highly regarded, best-selling author.
For starters, credit where due:
In our view, the New York Times frequently tends to disappear the many borderline crazy statements the sitting president posts on Truth Social. In our view, this seems like a way of avoiding the need to report on a very important topic—the possible state of the sitting president's mental / emotional / cognitive health.
In this case, credit where due! In this case, the president's "jaw-dropping" post about Mueller's death was not disappeared by the Times. Headline included, Weiner's report started like this:
Robert S. Mueller III, 81, Dies; Rebuilt F.B.I. and Led Trump Inquiry
Robert S. Mueller III, who led the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 12 tumultuous years, brought politically explosive indictments as a special counsel examining Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election, and then concluded that he could neither absolve nor accuse President Trump of a crime, died on Friday. He was 81.
His family confirmed the death in a statement but did not say where he died or specify the cause. Last August, the family disclosed publicly that Mr. Mueller was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in the summer of 2021. The law firm WilmerHale, from which Mr. Mueller retired in 2022, said he died on Friday night in Charlottesville, Va.
Mr. Trump remained unforgiving of Mr. Mueller’s investigation even after Mr. Mueller’s death. On learning of it on Saturday, the president posted on Truth Social: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”
Credit where due! On Fox, the highlighted statement had been disappeared. On this occasion, the New York Times sought safety in no such avoidance.
On the other hand, it had initially seemed to us that yesterday's Times report glossed the facts, in a familiar way, about the last major assignment of Mueller's career. We refer to Mueller's work, alluded to above, "as special counsel in a case where the chief subject of the investigation was the president of the United States."
Did the Times report gloss some facts about that matter? Weiner's account of the "Mueller report" started off like this:
The final 448-page report went to [Bill] Barr, who by then was the attorney general, on March 22, 2019. Mr. Mueller had trusted Mr. Barr, his longtime colleague and a family friend, to deliver its conclusions, unvarnished, to the American people. He would be sorely disappointed.
The report concluded that Russia had systemically sought to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that the candidate and his campaign had encouraged their clandestine assistance. It laid out 10 cases in which the president and his aides had sought to impede the F.B.I. investigation. Its key passage read: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
But the attorney general, while keeping the text of the report secret, ostensibly to redact sensitive information, announced only that “the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Mr. Trump proclaimed that he had been “totally exonerated.”
Yesterday, it seemed to us that this passage glossed the facts of this matter. Today, after rereading that part of the Times report, we're still puzzled by what it says.
As you can see, the passage says that AG Barr failed to include the "key passage" in the Mueller report when he "announced" the statement quoted above, apparently on March 24, 2019. Here's the problem:
On that same day, Barr sent a four-page letter about the Mueller report to the relevant congressional committees. Its contents were reported by the New York Times that very day—and in the relevant part of the letter, Barr instantly quoted the "key passage" which he supposedly didn't "announce."
Here's the relevant New York Times report. (Headline: "Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction.") The report appeared on the front page of the Times on March 25, 2019, with an online link to the four-page letter.
The "key passage" quoted by Weiner was instantly cited in that Times report. Unless we misunderstand what Weiner was saying, that "key passage" in the Mueller report was hardly a secret.
We're sorry now that we ever mentioned this (dated) topic this morning. In all honesty, we now have no idea what Weiner and his editors meant by the passage we've posted.
That said:
Back in real time, we Blues were sure that President Trump surely had to have committed obstruction of justice. From that day right on through yesterday, it has always seemed to us that we Blues proceeded to overstate the degree of perfidy attributable to Barr, in precisely the way yesterday's report seems to have revived.
What were Weiner and his editors referring to in the passage we've posted? At this point, we don't know. But tribal grievances never die in highly tribalized times like these. That fact is put on display every day of the week on the Fox News Channel's highest-rated programs.
We're sorry we brought this up. But yes—Blue orgs, like their Red counterparts, do sometimes "sift" the news. They sometimes report the facts they like while omitting the facts they don't.
As seen on yesterday's Fox & Friends Weekend, Fox News is clownishly sunk in this practice. We'll be exploring such behaviors all week.
In conclusion: In conclusion, credit where due! The New York Times reported the sitting president's extremely strange Truth Social post about Robert Mueller's death!
All too often (in our view), the timorous newspaper fails to report such potentially worrying conduct by the sitting president.
There's definitely a myth among liberals that Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller report. There's a lot of myths about the whole collusion episode. It's almost like a religious matter for some liberals. They will just repeat things that are not true and often times don't make any sense in order to maintain some kind of belief that Trump was colluding with Russia.
ReplyDeleteGet back to me when Trump testifies under oath. Until then he’s a fucking treasonous bastard
DeleteOnce the media made the collective decision to disappear the bigotry of Republican voters as the reason Trump was elected President, narratives like Russiagate were inevitable.
DeleteStrange, isn’t it? The Mueller report “totally exonerated” Trump (according to Trump) and yet Trump pisses on Mueller’s grave.
DeleteThere's definitely a myth among liberals that Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller report. There's a lot of myths about the whole collusion episode. It's almost like a religious matter for some liberals. They will just repeat things that are not true and often times don't make any sense in order to maintain some kind of belief that Trump was colluding with Russia.
DeleteTrump figuratively danced on Mueller's grave, because Mueller was nice to a black person once, not because Mueller exonerated him.
DeleteGive Trump some credit.He knows anyone who isn't a bigot ,or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago.
6:15,
DeleteIf what you say is true, I love it.
6:04 - A hell of a good point!
DeleteSo, the way I'm reading it, there's a whole lotta sifting going on in the Red Silo -- and most of us here, I think, would agree with that sentiment. So let's talk about the Blue Silo.
ReplyDeleteFirst, many here object to calling mainstream media outlets a "Blue Silo." I think they have a point. The mainstream media is fundamentally different from outlets such as Fox. Fox is propaganda; mainstream media is journalism.
But -- I think there is a self-segregation of the audiences. Reds tend to go to Fox; Blues tend to go to NYT, the Atlantic, etc. And the outlets that I think Somerby refers to by using the term "Blue Silo" are the major media outlets that Blues tend to go to for the primary reporting of the news.
And what Somerby is saying, I think, and I certainly could be wrong, is that the "sifting" in the Blue Silo takes two forms. In one form, facts that are inconvenient for Blues tend to get disappeared. In this the outlets are catering to their Blue audience. But in the other form, facts inconvenient to powerful Red interests tend to get downplayed or disappeared as well. E.g., Trump's erratic behavior; Fox's vulgar propaganda. These facts are disappeared out of fear of powerful actors.
At least, that's how I read what he's trying to say.
Ok. But tell us how “blue media” “sifted” in the case of the Mueller report, and what Barr said about it. That is somerby’s specific accusation here.
DeleteSo the NY Times disappeared the facts about Trump's rantings at the 2024 Presidential debate out of fear of powerful actors, but reported on Biden's cognitive struggles in that same debate, because they weren't factual?
DeleteMakes sense.
DG,
DeleteDo you think the NY Times will ever apologize to Joe Biden for writing all those columns throughout last Summer about Biden's declining cognitive abilities, when it turned out Biden was cognitive enough to voluntarily remove himself from the election?
6:00 -- Somerby tells us: Weiner said, falsely, that Barr failed to include the "key passage" in his announcement. This services the Blue narrative that Barr was covering up Trump's crimes.
DeleteNow please don't get me wrong. I think Trump obstructed justice; I think Barr covered it up. I'm just answering your question.
6:00 when you get around to reading the post about which you are commenting, you will see that he shows the New York Times portrayed Barr this weekend as withholding the part of the report that says it does not exonerate President Trump and then he shows that Barr explicitly quoted that line early on. 💋
Delete6:03 -- I think I agree with your point, if I understand it. Biden's performance was abysmal; Trump's almost as bad (I mean, Dems promote post-birth abortions? Come on!). But all the attention was on Biden. Why? My guess? First, Biden's bad performance was more visual; he looked decrepit and confused. Second, media outlets seem more scared of conservatives than of liberals, perhaps because conservatives tend to own things like media outlets.
DeleteBarr supposedly lying about the contents of the report is a liberal myth.
Delete"conservatives tend to own things like media outlets."
DeleteShhh. We're pretending the mainstream media is at all blue here. Don't blow it for us.
6:36 -- Well, I think most reporters are liberals because rational people who follow the news tend to be liberal. But they bend over backwards to appear neutral. I think the owners are rich people who tend to be conservative.
DeleteMost reporters are trying to keep their jobs, so they do what the owners want.
DeleteNext time you go to work, tell your boss to blow his ideas out his ass--because you know better---and let us know how that works out for you.
"I think the owners are rich people who tend to be conservative."
DeleteThat's just one way the media and Congress are alike.
Scott MacFarlane who left CBS just started at Meidas Touch.
Delete“I think Trump obstructed justice; I think Barr covered it up.”
DeleteYou just asserted that the blue media WASN’T creating a “sifted” narrative, but rather telling the truth. This is the opposite of what Somerby said.
If the NYT sifted anything about Mueller’s report, it would prove exactly nothing about today’s so-called blue media. DG is wrong about the media I and liberals I know go to for news. I go to NYT only to play Wordle. That’s it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know which side does more sifting. Either way, there's an awful lot of it. Anyone interested in a realistic understanding of the world should spend a lot of time following both sides' media. I, for one, appreciate Bob and commenters here who disagree with me. They keep me apprised of stories and interpretations not covered by the conservative media.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that from Trump's POV there never was anything like Russian collusion. Mueller made his life miserable by a drawn out, burdensome investigation that was based on totally bogus stuff. Under those circumstances, it was perfectly normal for Trump to feel bitter toward Mueller.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, Trump is excessively thin-skinned. Look how badly he treated Mike Pence for the "crime" of not certifying the election. This was an act that would have been clearly wrong. And, it would not have helped Trump even if Pence had done what he wanted. Nevertheless Trump said awful things about his loyal VP
Go fuck yourself, dickface. If Donny Little Finger Chickenshit wanted to end it he wouldn’t have fired Comey and would have been happy to answer questions under oath
DeleteAll publications have resource limitations tha force choices about how to cover news. Confusing that with “sifting” (why doesn’t Somerby use words that mean something, such as bias or propaganda) means Somerby is not thinking clearly about the job of editors who determine what gets covered and how, much less the mission statements and priorities of news organizations. Sifting means nothing. Somerby needs to learn to speak English.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see sifting, spend a half hour each day reading the NY Times and a half hour reading Instapundit and relevant links. You will two substantially worlds presented. Each of these sources leaves out and downplays quite a bit of stuff that the other source reports on and emphasizes.
DeleteBut the NY Times doesn't have as much sheer falsity as Instapundit.
DeleteThey all "sift out" the call for publicly-funded only election campaigns.
Delete