There is strong correlation between Trump's twitter feed and the "readiness drills" that NXIVM inflicted on its members: Designed to keep them in a state of anxious anticipation and train them into instant compliance.

Trump used it to train the media. https://twitter.com/DavidNakamura/status/1347776075905052673

I've said this for four years: We shouldn't cover his Twitter feed. We ceded all editorial control to his whims on Twitter and amplified the noise while missing the substance.

Anyone who cares to see Trump's could just log on to Twitter. You didn't need the Washington Post or New York Times to tell you what he tweeted. You rely on journalists to go deeper than the statement. That takes time. You don't need to be first, you need to ... be best.

The coverage of Trump has improved over four years. It's better now, but we need to be honest about what went wrong. We need to pump the brakes. We need to slow down. We need to be right.

The other thing we need to drive a stake into the heart of is this idea that because people are talking about it, its news: The news is about conveying facts and analysis, not about what people are talking about. Publishing a lie because someone said it is reckless.

"Claimed without evidence" is insufficient because it suggests that evidence may yet present itself. If it does, then you cover it.

We are supposed to be gatekeepers, not scribes.

And finally, the takes of professional take-havers are not news and are not worthy of coverage.

What Tucker Carlson says is not news and should not be covered as such. Nor any other such professional take-haver. Your coverage of their hot takes are why they take-have. Its in their business model. We have the power to stop giving it oxygen.

And on the point of publishing a lie because someone said it? I can think of no more egregious example of that than the decision to publish the Steele Dossier without verifying the allegations within. Some of what Steele reported was true, other things were misinformation.

It was a raw intelligence document, not subjected to analysis. Several other media orgs, including CNN, did not publish it because they were doing their job and trying to confirm its contents. BuzzFeed decided otherwise.

This had the predictable effect of Trump being able to claim everything in there was false based on a few things in there being wildly inaccurate.

Ultimately, it made the whole Russia investigation discourse more stupid and did untold harm to "the media" more broadly.

And now we listen to that editor's takes on journalism on the pages of New York Times.

Fin.