MONDAY: Does Silo Blue ever "sift" the news?

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 newswhen 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 Channelmore 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 reportessentially, it was an obituarywas 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 topicthe 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 dayand 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 yesBlue 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.


45 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get back to me when Trump testifies under oath. Until then he’s a fucking treasonous bastard

      Delete
    2. Once 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.

      Delete
    3. Strange, isn’t it? The Mueller report “totally exonerated” Trump (according to Trump) and yet Trump pisses on Mueller’s grave.

      Delete
    4. 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.

      Delete
    5. Trump figuratively danced on Mueller's grave, because Mueller was nice to a black person once, not because Mueller exonerated him.
      Give 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.

      Delete
    6. 6:15,
      If what you say is true, I love it.

      Delete
    7. It's only a hell of a good point if you are naive and simple enough to believe gratitude or respect should follow exoneration.

      Dogface, I think more accurately you should say that feelslike a good point because it accords with your beliefs.

      Delete
    8. It's actually an extremely dumb point if you look at it critically. But I get it feels good and we all tend to not look critically at points given that accord with our beliefs.

      Delete
  2. So, 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.

    First, 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. So 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?
      Makes sense.

      Delete
    3. DG,
      Do 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?

      Delete
    4. 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.

      Now please don't get me wrong. I think Trump obstructed justice; I think Barr covered it up. I'm just answering your question.

      Delete
    5. 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. 💋

      Delete
    6. 6:03 -- 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.

      Delete
    7. Barr supposedly lying about the contents of the report is a liberal myth.

      Delete
    8. "conservatives tend to own things like media outlets."

      Shhh. We're pretending the mainstream media is at all blue here. Don't blow it for us.

      Delete
    9. 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.

      Delete
    10. Most reporters are trying to keep their jobs, so they do what the owners want.
      Next 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.

      Delete
    11. "I think the owners are rich people who tend to be conservative."

      That's just one way the media and Congress are alike.

      Delete
    12. Scott MacFarlane who left CBS just started at Meidas Touch.

      Delete
    13. “I think Trump obstructed justice; I think Barr covered it up.”

      You 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.

      Delete
    14. How did Barr cover up Trump's alleged obstruction? Be specific.

      Delete
    15. After Barr sent his resume to Trump letting him know he has experience as AG burying the crimes of President criminals and their co-conspirators,Trump hired him to bury all the criming the fat turd and his associates committed. Muellers plan was for Congress to do their job and prosecute the crimes and follow-up on all the efforts to hide their crimes. Read for yourself asshole. Even redacted there is plenty to learn

      Delete
    16. I was wondering exactly how Barr covered up Trump's obstruction.

      The insults, unsupported accusations and strawman arguments you offer instead make it very clear you cannot do this.

      The reason? Because Barr covering up Trump's alleged obstruction or lying about the contents of the Mueller report is a liberal myth. It's a fantasy story they pushed on you. That one, they got over on you. Played you for a fool. Took you for a ride. Saw you coming from a mile away.

      Yeah, that was one they fooled you on pretty good.

      Delete
    17. Dogface, maybe you can tell me why you believe Barr covered up. Trump's obstruction. What exactly do you mean by that? Be specific.

      Why do you believe that? Who told you that? Why did you believe them? You didn't feel like researching it yourself and just believed someone who told you this? What's up?

      It's a good example of how liberals are propagandized and played for fools by powerful elements that play on their goodwill and naivete.

      It's just one of many examples of of how they play us.

      Delete
    18. After all, Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton. Right? ;)

      Delete
    19. The Barr myth had a lot to do the exact moment and the psychology of liberals who had been propagandized over years. He was like a scapegoat really. The report had been released and gullible dupes who had watched Rachel Maddow and read low IQ liberal blogs for years were having to come to terms with the reality that there was not enough evidence to establish Trump conspired with Russia. (something that was completely and totally obvious the whole time). So they grasped about and tried to make Barr into some kind of villain. Inventing stories about covering up and lying. It served a psychological function. It was something people needed to keep the dream alive and to not have to come to terms with the obvious truth.

      Delete
    20. Has nothing to do with rachel Maddow or liberal blogs. Mueller himself took exception as well as federal judges:

      “In his letter [of 3/27/2019], Mueller told Barr that the attorney general’s March 24 summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,”

      “The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. [march of 2020]

      Delete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Dickhead - Have you shitted thru the news that the fucking idiot is paying a billion of our tax dollars to a French Company to abandon a wind turbine project and drill oil in the Gulf and instead? It's the idiocy and corruption Dumbass. Now with warmongeri ng on top

      Delete
  5. My 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.

    Beyond 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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

      Delete
    2. Completely ill or uninformed but full of shit is our troll David in Cal. And he is proud of his stupid. Hey David, what's your advice for the dumbass now that Iran has him by the short hairs? Looks like the brain dead fucker is sending in the marines. It will only get worse and more costly for us. Trump has lost his war.

      Delete
    3. What would you do, @9:43. Sit back and let Iran develop nuclear weapons to go with the intermediate range missiles that they already have? Attack with ground forces?

      Delete
    4. DiC, fucking miserable troll. Completely lies about the Mueller investigation and pretends that the Iranians were a threat to the United States. Why don't you pack up your shit and head over to the West Bank where you can harass Palestinian farmers and drive them from their homes to your heart's content?

      Delete
  6. All 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If 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.

      Delete
    2. But the NY Times doesn't have as much sheer falsity as Instapundit.

      Delete
    3. They all "sift out" the call for publicly-funded only election campaigns.

      Delete
    4. I'm sure we've all seen this:

      https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU?si=GgOU7q7C1gzrqcXk

      Reporters who are hired for the major outlets believe what they are doing is noble and believe everything they are saying, it's just that if they believed something different, they wouldn't be hired or let anywhere near these outlets.

      Delete
    5. Fuck off you big dummy David

      Delete