She just glosses right over the fact that the public report is declassified material. Does she assume the classified versions also don’t “divulge any evidence”?

I actually read this article once, closed it, went to the NYTimes and got the links for the articles I read this morning, came back and read it again...my head was shaking the whole time - from the first time I read “did-they-didn’t-they” until I posted my comment. And, while writing this response, I scrolled up to…

This article is pretty strange to read on Jezebel, honestly. The tone, the weird framing (the statement that the report just repeats allegations that the Democrats made during the campaign- What??), but particularly the underlying completely dishonest statement that the intelligence agencies have provided no evidence.…

Hannah really screwed up on this one (both headline and content).

Yes, the way it’s used in the headline...did not provide evidence of what, specifically? No evidence Russia hacked or no evidence Russia’s hacking influenced the election / resulted in X number of voters changing their minds etc?

This is embarassing.

Well said. There’s really no excuse for someone who has decided to write an article on this not to have done some basic background work. I enjoy this site but things like this definitely help tip the scales towards “blog” rather than “journalism.” This piece in particular is bumping dangerously up against the fake…

(or she)

THIS is what the article SHOULD’VE been. Hats off to you.

She is only 25 years old, and a “weekend” writer for Jezebel. What the hell do you expect? The people that write for this place aren’t exactly competing for a Pulitzer.

Literally every person who was in the meeting with the officials who came out of it and saw the actual evidence said they believed it and said that they wished that they would declassify if precisely because of very articles like this. What are you even doing right now Hannah? I mean even Paul f***ing Ryan is on…

It’s not the person who wrote the NYTimes article, it is Hannah who doesn’t understand the NYTimes reporting or what an intelligence analysis is. She’s using a follow up article about Russia’s response as the basis for this garbage. The NYTimes has a whole collection of articles on the intelligence report and this…

If only I had more than a star and Picard gif to give.

All I’m getting out of this is that whoever wrote the NYT piece doesn’t understand what an analysis is. The report’s declassified, of course it’s not going to have any of the actual intel that led them to their conclusion in it. And fuck whatever Putin’s mouthpieces are saying, they’re irrelevant because we know…

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

THANK YOU. This article is outrageous and should be retracted. Completely misleading.

Glad you put this up. I was just about to post this Guardian article and suggest Jezebel try taking the time to learn about what is actually going on before publishing anymore of these embarrassing posts. And this one is extremely embarrassing- it’s like Hannah just skimmed one article (not even the main article on…

Replying to bump

As it’s been reported, the publicly released version of the Intelligence community’s report on the election doesn’t include any info that could jeopardize sources and cyber trails. But the top secret version has them.

Wow. This is a total garbage article. Jezebel really needs to rethink its political reporting- really, really not good. Let’s look at the NYTimes. Oh look. Literally the second bullet point front page main points of the article without even clicking on the article itself: