01-21-2019 09:04:27 PM -0800
01-21-2019 05:12:14 PM -0800
01-21-2019 10:26:58 AM -0800
01-21-2019 07:52:07 AM -0800
01-20-2019 01:01:48 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

New York Times: 'McCabe Steps Down in Widely Expected Move.' Other Outlets: McCabe 'Removed'

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe scowls during Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Search the internet: Literally not a single media outlet, reporter, pundit, tweet, Russian bot, or cuddly woodland creature had predicted that the FBI's Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should be "expected" to "step down" on Monday.

Yet the New York Times' Adam Goldman -- with a remarkably titled post published just moments after news broke elsewhere that McCabe was out -- wrote that such a move was "Widely Expected".

Here is a screenshot, in case of the likely event that the article gets deleted:

And here is the entirety of the article posted by Goldman:

That's it. The Times' Peter Baker then spread the link on Twitter at 1:09 p.m.:

Is there any truth to Goldman's claim that today's news had been "widely expected"?

Prior reporting -- including from the New York Times in December -- had claimed that McCabe was hanging on to his role until the middle of March, when he would become eligible for retirement. Yet today is January 29. Absolutely no one had published anywhere that McCabe would "go on leave" prior to mid-March, and then retire when he becomes eligible.

However, that point appears to be moot, or at least secondary.

Because virtually every other outlet besides the New York Times is reporting that the New York Times headline is incorrect on a second claim: McCabe reportedly was "removed." He did not step down of his own accord. Goldman's claim -- that "[a]n American official said Mr. McCabe made his intentions known on Monday" -- contradicts reporting from virtually all other outlets claiming a source.

Even CNN -- though also using the "stepping down" language implying a voluntary decision -- used a sub-head clarifying that perhaps not even McCabe "expected" to be gone today:

"Not his decision."

By 2:15 p.m., Adam Goldman's article was still up.

Further, a second author -- Matt Apuzzo -- had joined the byline, and seven paragraphs had been added to the initial three sentences.

Yet still, none of these updates included the then-widely available reports that McCabe had been "removed." The additional paragraphs only provided hagiographical background on McCabe.

Further, and perhaps most telling regarding the New York Times' biases, the article currently ends with these three paragraphs:


To recap: the New York Times is informing its readers that Andrew McCabe voluntarily stepped down on January 29, which was widely expected because he is eligible for retirement in ... mid-March. And Trump is trying to distract you from Russia.

The rest of the media -- including similarly biased CNN -- is reporting that McCabe did not have "intentions" to leave today. He was "removed." And no one has publicly expressed that this was "expected," let alone "widely expected."