To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The Washington Post (3/1/17) plays down its scoop.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.
The Washington Post, which broke the Jeff Sessions/Russian ambassador story (3/1/17), is framing it to minimize political damage to the attorney general. Here's the headline:
Sessions Met With Russian Envoy Twice Last Year, Encounters He Later Did Not Disclose
But the problem is not that Sessions "did not disclose" his meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it's that he lied about them under oath.
As the Post's story notes in its sixth paragraph, when asked during his confirmation hearings about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, he replied, "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
"I did not have communications with the Russians"--an unqualified denial of the kind of meetings he now acknowledges that he had.
Given the impact of media perception on DC reality, if the Post had accurately headlined its story "Sessions Lied Under Oath About Meeting With Russians," he might be in far more political (not to mention legal) jeopardy--but that kind of forthrightness was reserved for partisan outlets like Think Progress (3/2/17), whose story was headed "Sessions Lied to Congress About His Contacts With Russia During the Trump Campaign."
Likewise, the Post piece reports in the third paragraph that Sessions "has so far resisted calls to recuse himself" from a hypothetical investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. In the 22nd paragraph, though, we learn that calls have gone far beyond recusal: "Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post"--including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
It's a mistake to think that the era of online news has eroded the power of the traditional media establishment. The fact is that with monthly visitors surpassing 80 million, and 90,000 websites linking to it, WashingtonPost.com's reach far exceeds what the print-only Post ever dreamed of. The spin the outlet that breaks a story puts on that story can be replicated across social media with the speed of a mouse click. And in this case, the spin seems designed to limit the threat to Sessions' job--let alone the threat of prosecution for perjury.