NYT's and others - Rosenstein considered recording the President

[Seriati]

So this is all over the media now.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html?action=click&module=Top+Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer.  But the NYT is claiming that Rosenstein considered wiring people interviewing to replace Comey to record what the  President told them.  He also considered invoking the 25th.

Now Rosenstein has already denied the claims, which are based on "anonymous" sources, as well as, what appear to be Andrew McCabe's notes of the meetings.

What's absolutely most troubling to me, are the reader comments.  At least 50% of them flat out say that the NYT's should have buried this.  Basically saying that Rosenstein staying in place to take out Trump is more important than truth.

EDIT TO ADD:  This is absolute confirmation of what I said Day one, Rosenstein is far more conflicted in this probe than Sessions and should have been recused from the start. 

[Wayward Son]

I wouldn't worry about the reader comment section, Seriati.  You got a lot of selection bias there.  You'll get more opinions from the fringe than normal in such a venue.

And exactly how wanting to hear exactly what the President says mean you aren't interested in the truth? 

[TheDrake]

He can just take a page from the Trump playbook and say he was joking. Wait, he already did. That's a free pass, right?

[Seriati]

Wayward, the user comments are  a measure of the pulse.  I've looked at the NYT comments for years.  They trend towards the real attitudes on the left, and that is absolutely terrifying in this circumstance.

[D.W.]

I can't say I've followed the NYT comments section much, but if you are correct, it's an aberration as far as comment sections go.

[TheDrake]

That's about as valid as saying Breitbart comments are a finger on the pulse of the right. In which case, the right is racist, homophobic, misogynist, and lousy at spelling and grammar.

[Seriati]

Sure, if you've been reading the Brietbart comments for years and you wanted to reach a conclusion like that go ahead.  My personal opinion, is that either there really is a racism problem on message boards, or someone with a botnet wants us to think there is one.

On the other hand, that wasn't the only place that was calling the article unhelpful and suggesting it shouldn't have been reported (at least not on Friday and Saturday), oddly having trouble locating those things on Google today. 

[TheDrake]

*shrug* A lot of people say a lot of things. Are any of them reputable? And you could easily say the same thing about your NYT commentary trail - are liberals really suggesting the suppression of reporters, or does someone have a botnet? Which is why its a lousy measure of public opinion at large.

There have been questions about the accuracy of sources, and other items, just as the right regularly criticizes the failing New York Times for - so its unnerving to see how quickly some Trumpians jump to their defense when the news suits them. Suddenly anonymous sources are pure gold, and not to be questioned.

On Saturday, the paper’s deputy managing editor, Matt Purdy, defended the story on Twitter. “The DOJ claim that Rosenstein was sarcastic when he suggested he wear a wire on Trump is not supported by our reporting or others. If you actually read them, the follow stories by the Wapo, ABCNews and CNN support our story, not debunk it,” he wrote.

And actually, I would point out that there is at least one person in the story who was in the room, and that was the handout from the Justice Department that was given to us. An anonymous person—not anonymous to us, but a person on background—who described the events of the story. Our reporting did not show—did not give a lot of credibility to the Justice Department pushback.

Q. Why were you so doubtful about that person, and was it a hard decision to run with the story given that the only person whom you can identify even on background, who was actually in the room, offered a contradictory account?

A. Well, the interactions in the room are documented in ways that go further beyond people’s memories: memos and notes that were taken at the FBI after those interactions. And you are in the balancing act of looking at “OK, are we going to take someone’s recollection? Are we going to lean into that, or are we going to lean into what a memo may say, or what notes may say, or the recollections of others who have more detail and offer more specifics than what the person in the room is giving to us?”

Just because you’re in the room, and you offer one detail, does not necessarily mean that you’re telling the truth or it’s accurate. A memo, or notes, or a much more detailed memory of someone who may not have been in the room, may be much better.

article

I don't really see any left leaning doubt about the story and questioning the accuracy of the reporting as much different than what the Trumpians have been saying about NYT for the past 18 months. That NYT shouldn't be publishing things from unnamed sources and leakers.