You think the Times doesn’t hear about on-going investigative reporting that’s being conducted by other publications? Or that the DHS hears about a possible leak or whistleblower story… then they reach out to their guy at the Times to publish a positive story about said agency, in order to preempt the Tulsi story with a positive DEI headline?
I have no idea what stories the NYT hears about. I have no reason to believe that they knew anything about UNCOVERDC's communications with a whistleblower. If you want to claim that the NYT must have known about the story three days before it was published, provide some evidence for your claim. I prefer not to make assumptions in the absence of evidence.
Note that I didn't say that the NYT doesn't print propaganda or suppress relevant news - they do. But in this particulalr case, I know of no evidence for your claim, and you haven't provided any.
Correction… it was published august 1st…. Which is actually worse. Lol
Why is that worse? The NY Times story was published three days before UNCOVERDC published the Tulsi Gabbard story (on August 4).
You think the Times doesn’t hear about on-going investigative reporting that’s being conducted by other publications? Or that the DHS hears about a possible leak or whistleblower story… then they reach out to their guy at the Times to publish a positive story about said agency, in order to preempt the Tulsi story with a positive DEI headline?
I have no idea what stories the NYT hears about. I have no reason to believe that they knew anything about UNCOVERDC's communications with a whistleblower. If you want to claim that the NYT must have known about the story three days before it was published, provide some evidence for your claim. I prefer not to make assumptions in the absence of evidence.
Note that I didn't say that the NYT doesn't print propaganda or suppress relevant news - they do. But in this particulalr case, I know of no evidence for your claim, and you haven't provided any.