New York Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt just released a book yesterday titled Donald Trump v. The United States, which promises to reveal exclusive insight and details into the Mueller investigation and other clashes and conflicts within Donald Trump's White House. Now, while most of the general public might be sticking their pinkies out in anticipation of this piping kettle full of hot tea, there are a few people less than thrilled that we're receiving this information in book form. Those people are other journalists.
They bring up a good point. If Michael S. Schmidt works for The New York Times and this is, as the synopsis for his own book alleges, "vital journalism that draws on secret FBI and White House documents and confidential sources inside federal law enforcement and the West Wing," then shouldn't this have been reported to the public by The Times the moment it was verified? Is it fair of Michael S. Schmidt to stash away secrets that could have swayed public opinion towards or against Trump's impeachment, perhaps changing the course of history, all to sell a few more copies of a book?
Well, there's a counter-argument to this:
Perhaps these were details to the story that The New York Times felt weren't fit for print. Or, maybe Schmidt could only get the scoop if he promised that those details would appear later, like in say, a book right before the 2020 election. It's possible, although it still raises an air of suspicion. After all, this is the guy who wrote the original "but her emails" story about Hillary Clinton. (I guess back then it was just "her emails!") It's frustrating because there could be some genuinely revelatory information here.
Schmidt basically has a problem where the public is left to either question his motives or question his facts. Either way, it's yet another bad look for The New York Times, but the worry is that they might be getting too used to it.
Support Dan on Twitter and he will talk about his life with you in lieu of getting a therapist.
Top Image: Wikipedia