I read through the CJR piece and think there’s plenty constructive to take away from it. As I said in that prior thread, I sensed much of what this article attributes to the NYT in their coverage, and during the Trump years found myself reading the WSJ more consistently than the NYT. I still do.

Mother Jones accuses the CJR piece of obscuring the real truth behind the Russiagate scandal, which is that Russia interfered in ‘16 on behalf of Trump, and while that was happening, Trump officials planned meetings with Russian assets, definitely expressed an interest in obtaining information from them (even if the infamous Trump Tower meeting was a dud), and shared information with them (especially Manafort).

I actually think some of the obscuring should be attributed to the NYT, and CNN and others to perhaps a lesser extent. How? By reporting every rumor in almost real time, raising expectations of some obviously impeachable and indictable smoking guns, and when the confirmed story didn’t really rise above the more milquetoast revelations, the world kind of yawned.

By jumping the gun to aggressively push the more dire conclusions and perhaps not accentuate the twists and turns along the way as the whole thing advanced, they arguably over promised (raised expectations), and under delivered.