In the wake of the latest developments in the Michael Flynn case, on Tuesday, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum cited the New York Post Editorial Board suggesting that Pulitzer Prizes handed out to liberal media outlets for their promotion of the debunked Russia collusion narrative should be revoked. Senior political analyst Brit Hume agreed, labeling the obsessive coverage a “journalistic fiasco.”
On The Story, MacCallum read in part from the Post op-ed: “Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction. The Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate.” Moments later, Hume provided an equally harsh assessment of how the press pushed the faulty story with near-religious devotion:
As for the journalism involved in the pursuit of that story, the collision narrative that we’ve lived with for so very long before it was blown up in the Mueller Report, it was the worst journalistic fiasco of my now more than 50-some years in journalism. It was a disaster. And you look – look at what the editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, said about it. He said he had set up his whole newsroom, his whole journalistic operation was to cover that story and it ended up, you know, going nowhere.
He further observed that anti-Trump fervor in the media was the driving force behind the malpractice: “It was a terrible journalistic misjudgment and it was rooted in their view, in my opinion, it was rooted in their view of Donald Trump. That when this charge arose, they thought so little of him, that he was such a terrible person that it had to be true.”
Hume specifically called out Pulitzer winners at major newspapers: “And The Washington Post and The New York Times pursued it relentlessly. Their coverage did not reflect any real doubt, you know, that it might not turn out to be true at any time, and in the end it all blew up.”
“You would think they’d learn. They don’t seem to learn though, these journalists who were involved in that,” Hume concluded.
Wrapping up the segment, MacCallum read the now-ironic citation of the Pulitzer Committee as it hailed journalists who pushed the Russiagate conspiracy theory:
I want to leave everyone with just this. This is the citation for the Pulitzer Prize that went to The New York Times and The Washington Post: “For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-Elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” So I just leave that with everybody to think what they will of it in light of what we are learning in recent days.
Not only have the liberal media refused to learn anything from their failure, as far as they are concerned, they engaged in award-winning journalism.
Here is a transcript of the May 12 exchange:
7:23 PM ET
(...)
MARTHA MACCALLUM: With regard to the press and the coverage of this Russia story as it sort of, you know, unravels in different pieces here, the New York Post Editorial Board wrote this today, “It looks” – this is the headline – “It looks like President Obama ordered up phony Russiagate scandal.” And it goes on to say as part of that piece, “Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction. The Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate. Innocents like Flint were bankrupted along the way. Say this about Obama: He knows how to play dirty.” Very strong words there from the New York Post Editorial Board, Brit.
BRIT HUME: Yeah, and I don’t think we yet know enough to say that Obama ordered and directed all this, but his name has now been drawn into it because of that now-famous January 2017 meeting when he was briefed by – when it became clear he had been briefed by Comey on the Flynn wiretap and, you know, Sally Yates, who was acting as Attorney General at the time, was in meeting and she hadn’t heard about it. So it was pretty clear that Comey and Obama were working pretty closely here and the FBI had gone around main Justice to do the Flynn interview that it ended up doing. So, you know, there’s a lot to investigate there, but I don’t know if we can say that Obama directed this. But we’re probably going to find out.
As for the journalism involved in the pursuit of that story, the collision narrative that we’ve lived with for so very long before it was blown up in the Mueller Report, it was the worst journalistic fiasco of my now more than 50-some years in journalism. It was a disaster. And you look – look at what the editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, said about it. He said he had set up his whole newsroom, his whole journalistic operation was to cover that story and it ended up, you know, going nowhere.
It was a terrible journalistic misjudgment and it was rooted in their view, in my opinion, it was rooted in their view of Donald Trump. That when this charge arose, they thought so little of him, that he was such a terrible person that it had to be true. And The Washington Post and The New York Times pursued it relentlessly. Their coverage did not reflect any real doubt, you know, that it might not turn out to be true at any time, and in the end it all blew up.
You would think they’d learn. They don’t seem to learn though, these journalists who were involved in that. You know, they got that whole story about the Covington kids wrong and it goes on, it’s still going on. And I think the coverage of the coronavirus epidemic has reflected this. You know, there’s a desire, you know, to see this thing as this shutdown should continue endlessly. And anything that points in that direction, they love, and anything that doesn’t, they don’t.
MACCALLUM: Alright, I’ve got to let you go, Brit, but I want to leave everyone with just this. This is the citation for the Pulitzer Prize that went to The New York Times and The Washington Post: “For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-Elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” So I just leave that with everybody to think what they will of it in light of what we are learning in recent days. Brit, thank you. As always, good to see you.
HUME: Thank you, Martha.
