@seawulf575 “as I stated, the data collection could have been done by July/August.”
Under normal circumstances, I would completely agree. But when it was discovered in July that the data gathered up to that point might be unreliable (because Cuomo had interfered with it), it became necessary to go back over it. The needed data was revealed to be the post-review data, and not the data that had been interfered with. I’m not trying to split hairs here, so my apologies if this seems overly picky. But I think it is important for understanding at least part of the story.
“The report could have been done a month later.”
But again, Cuomo’s initial order and his April interference enabled him to set a lot of the timeline regarding data collection and data release. That’s why I find it strange to implicate James in the putative delays (since the timeline wasn’t up to her, and Cuomo seems to have purposefully manipulated the timeline to take advantage of state and federal laws about reporting requirements during election years). Cuomo repeatedly abused his power, and James’ report was delayed as a result of that. Yes, the delays may end up helping James politically, and maybe Cuomo thought that giving her that help would influence her to play down his culpability. But she didn’t. Her report was not at all good for him, and she is continuing to pursue other charges against him—including further inquiries into the nursing home debacle, which are being hindered by Cuomo and Tom DiNapoli (the state’s Comptroller).
“As for ‘dragging James’ into this, I don’t think anyone was dragged into anything.”
There seems to be an effort—not necessarily from you or @crazyguy—to paint James as being equally corrupt as Cuomo (or at least similarly corrupt, since “equally” is a pretty high bar to clear). That’s what I meant by “dragging James into this”—trying to drag her into the actual scandal, which I just don’t think we have evidence for right now.
“Why the disconnect between what real people know and what the news puts out as ‘news’?”
Because the popular media is an easily distracted puppy being led around by an owner whose only interest is selling advertisements. The puppy is obsessed with self-promotion and overly invested in the public narrative. The owner is obsessed with self-marketing and overly averse to spending the sort of money that deep journalism requires. It’s a bad situation that keeps good journalists out of the spotlight and puts good journalism on page F-13 or in the 2:00 AM time slot.
There’s plenty of good journalism out there, both from the outlets you mentioned and others. But it never leads. Instead of “here’s my three year investigation into Cuomo’s bad behavior both before and after his run for office,” we get “Cuomo’s popular right now, so let’s pursue that for as long as we can!” Even news outlets opposed to Cuomo will ignore the deeper stuff for whatever is big in the moment. We’ll get the the three year investigation story, but not until he resigns, loses reelection, or decides not to run again (i.e., too late). Because the other story makes people stars and sells more ads.
It starts early, too. I worked on the student newspaper in college, and the tension between the people who were interested in journalism and the people who were interested in the business of newspapers was already there. The faculty advisor’s priorities were also pretty messed up.