It is no revelation that the New York Times hates Donald Trump. What isn’t known is the depths this newspaper will go to destroy his presidency.
Breitbart News has uncovered emails from a reporter with the New York Times to government employees. It clearly demonstrates that New York Times employees are not merely obtaining leaks innocently, but actually soliciting government employees to become leakers.
One case in point was how the newspaper colluded (one of their favorite words) with the president of a government union to encourage and solicit leaks. The exchange was documented by Breitbart News:
Coral Davenport – Energy and Environment Correspondent for The New York Times: (Sent to John J. O’Grady, President of the EPA Workers Union, AFGE Council 238 in Chicago) – “Thanks again for taking the time to speak today. As I mentioned, I’m working on a story specifically at concrete examples of unusual secretary at E.P.A.”
She continues, “I’ve heard a lot of second-hand rumours, but in order to report these incidents, I’d need to have first-hand or eyewitness accounts. I’m looking for examples of things like, information being communicated only verbally when it would historically have been put in writing, people being told not to bring phones, laptops or even take notes in meetings where they would in the past typically have done so, eyewitness accounts of things like the administrator or top political appointees refusing to use official email, phones or computers, or any other specific, first-hand examples of practices that appear to demonstrate unprecedented secrecy or transparency.”
This communication is not a case of mere reporter curiosity. In the midst of President Trump and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions trying to stop the dangerous level of government leaks, it is more like a New York Times political crusade.
The “interest” comes as EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is being targeted by the left and the extremist media. The former attorney general of Oklahoma has emerged as one of the most successful cabinet-level officials in the Trump administration.
It is only one instance in many that shows a pattern of vindictively brazen attempts by the NYT to defame the Trump administration. Another example is an article written in late July by Lisa Friedman who happens to be one of Davenport’s colleagues. She “reported” on Pruitt’s frequent trips to his home state of Oklahoma:
“Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, travelled to his home state, Oklahoma, 10 times over three months this year, largely at taxpayer expense, according to a report released Monday. The findings from the Environmental Integrity Project, a non-profit group founded by former E.P.A. officials, are drawn from Mr. Pruitt’s calendar and the travel expenses he has submitted for reimbursement. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the documents show Mr. Pruitt spent 43 out of 92 days from March through May in Oklahoma or traveling to or from the state.”
But the story follows a familiar pattern of many written on Trump administration personnel. The innuendo is the story, while the disclaimer comes deep within the confines of the article. Several paragraphs down, where most readers never venture, she cites she “does not assert” that anything about Pruitt’s travels back to Oklahoma as EPA administrator is at all “improper.”
It is an all-too-familiar trick used by many anti-Trump news organizations to subliminally lure the reader to one conclusion. At least one honest news source caught this deceit. The Tulsa World newspaper in Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma noted “The Gray Lady,” (the New York Time’s nickname) was ” … making a mountain out of a mole hill.” In their editorial, they went on to say, “If we were supposed to be shocked to learn that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is going home on weekends, we’re not. Heaven Forfend! Scott Pruitt is going home on weekends!”
The sordid “journalistic practices” by the NYT have caught Trump’s attention more than a few times. In his recent twitter he called the newspaper “totally inept.” The full tweet read, “The failing @nytimes, which has made every wrong prediction about me including my big election win (apologized), is totally inept!” – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 7, 2017
Not surprisingly, O’Grady, the union official with whom Davenport was colluding per these emails to solicit government leakers, has not responded to a request for comment. Meanwhile Davenport promises to keep her leakers’ identities protected.
She wrote indignantly, “While I’d like to speak to staff about these examples, I don’t need to quote them by name or with any sort of identifying details that could in any way reveal the source of the information. We’re very sensitive to the need to protect career folks who speak to us, and we do not want to endanger anyone’s employment. But, in order to ensure that our reporting is based on facts rather than rumours, we do need to feel sure that the examples we give are based on first-hand or eyewitness experiences rather than second and third-hand rumours.”
Davenport is very defensive about her tactics for uncovering sources. Like so many so-called reporters “just doing their job,” she reverts to her “rights as a journalist,” to justify the means and tactics that are used utilized in that quest. She continues her plea for leaks and explain how they are formulated into “revelations” in the New York Times.
She openly describes that: “If you have put together multiple eyewitness accounts of a specific example of behaviour that demonstrates an unprecedented lack of transparency, we could cite that. Or, if I speak to multiple people who describe, first-hand, such an example, I could cite that without needing any quotations. In general, the more folks I speak to who can offer specific, first-hand accounts of similar phenomena, the more I can write with authority in a broad way with no quotations or identifying details.”
Her methods are revealing. But even more telling is how she ended her email to O’Grady. She wrote, … “feel free to send this note around to folks who might be willing to chat.” She then forwarded her email to a large list of EPA employees.
For his part, O’Grady wrote to EPA employees, “Below is an e-mail I received from Coral Davenport of the New York Times. She needs our assistance in verifying some information she has heard.” He went on to say of Davenport, ” … she is looking for examples of things like, information being communicated only verbally when it would historically have been put in writing, people being told not to bring phones, laptops or even take notes in meetings where they would in the past typically have done so. Eyewitness accounts of things like the administrator or top political appointees refusing to use official email, phones or computers, or any other specific, first-hand examples of practices that appear to demonstrate unprecedented secrecy or transparency.”
O’Grady, ever willing to please, ends his email saying, “Please feel free to contact Coral directly.” Americans should know how much of their news is being extracted and just how “neutral” the extreme media is in disseminating it.