On December 12, 2015, the New York Times ran this story by Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt relying on anonymous sources. The anonymous sources claimed that the FBI and other government agencies had missed or ignored Facebook and Twitter posts by the San Bernardino terrorist’s wife in support of radical, violent jihad.
Turns out the story was factually wrong. James Comey called B.S. on the story and even the New York Times’s public editor took the paper to task for its reliance on anonymous sources. Interestingly, the New York Times’s news editor defended the reporters who had completely screwed up the salacious story.
Those same reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt, reported another salacious story on February 14th of this year. They claimed that “[p]hone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”
Again, according to James Comey’s testimony under oath before the United States Senate, this story is not true.
The New York Times has not updated or issued a correction to this story relating to James Comey’s testimony.
We have now twice been stirred up as a nation by these two reporters at the New York Times who have now twice relied on anonymous sources and now twice been called out by James Comey for not being true or accurate. Why should we believe the New York Times at all given this pattern?