Holy shit I'm in complete agreement with you.

It's the only universal truth.

The little potato bowl was awesome

I'll always be sad to see a nacho dish dropped off any menu.

I love me a good nacho.

The machinery is really going all out this election.

If you dont vote for Biden, you have no standing to complain if you get shot in the street or dragged from you vehicle and beaten to death.

As an aspiring nerd of journalism, I'd love to read some meta-insight on how The Atlantic chose Thursday evening to release this article.

The story rocketed to the forefront of news headlines. Quickly, by the next day Friday, the anonymous sources in the original piece were deemed credible by multiple news organizations including Fox News.

Now we're in Labor Day Weekend and print news (at least the several I've checked including major Texas papers) isn't featuring the story prominently.
I'd think more people are focused on their immediate life as opposed to national politics during a holiday weekend than on a typical weekend.
Though maybe because the article came out right before the long weekend this is likely to come up when folks discuss current events with friends and family.

I can imagine this is getting lots of attention today on Sunday morning talk shows (will read up on this as I don't watch TV). So a late Thursday release could maximize those?

And even more than the day of the week this was released, Trump's canceled trip was in November 2018.
So why is this news coming out now?
It makes total sense to wait until election season for the facts to have maximum impact. It's less likely this will easily roll off Trump's back now than at the time in 2018.
I can imagine some time also had to pass for the anonymous sources to be forthcoming.

I've spent a fair amount of time in a statewide newsroom. No real national experience to speak of, but I'd imagine the process is roughly the same:

The editors generally have stories cooking months in advance. They assign a writer, and the writer digs in for as long as it takes. Unlike the newsroom I've worked with, I'd imagine the Atlantic has enough material on the shelf that they can, as you implied, sit on a story for a few weeks to maximize impact, but I'd be very surprised if they were holding it back much longer than that.

Publication dates are typically scheduled to maximize a steady flow of traffic across different topics. So like, "We've got an economic impact story on Monday, a literary piece on Tuesday, an environmental story on Wednesday, a military story on Thursday, a human rights story on Friday, and an A&E/cultural piece for the weekend. Then we'll bump it all with our weekly newsletter, then again with our monthly newsletter."

If they've done their due diligence, they had all the sources confirmed before they scheduled pub. And they're currently tracking web hits and SEO like mad, to see what sort of new readership is coming in for this article that has gone viral, where they're coming from, what other interests they have, and using all that information to try to bring them into the fold for future publications. And probably planning (or have already planned) some fundraising off the story, too.

Nice! I was hoping you would chime in, Trag.
That all makes sense and helps create a fuller picture.

It's not likely The Atlantic would sit on this after verifying the story, at least for a long period of time. Especially with a story like this, which is almost guaranteed to drive a high amount of traffic, the longer they wait the more they risk someone else getting the story first. If there is any motivation in trying to damage Trump with the timing, it's more likely coming from the sources in deciding to be forthcoming about this now.

I disagree with the bold part. They probably have 2-3 high traffic stories a month, even if this one is exceptionally high. And it seems like this story required a lot of rigorous investigative work and massaging of sources -- not something that would likely wind up on a competitor's front page if they decided to hold it back for a few weeks.

That said, the Atlantic is obviously a leftist publication, so I'm sure there are some ulterior motives to their decision to publish now. But again, I'd be surprised if this were in the can a month ago.

I'm not sure I'd agree; look at how quickly competitors were able to independently verify the Atlantic story. I think it indicates that the ability to publish was based primarily on the source's willingness to be quoted without attribution. And the Trump White House is the most heavily-covered agency or organization in the world (I'd imagine by a considerable margin); I don't think any publication would be willing to wait long on a story like this, assuming that they're the only ones who are going to have it. I think it's either that this got dropped on the Atlantic, or (maybe more likely), Goldberg had been told this off the record at some point and only just now got the ok to use the source's quotes without being named. And the other publications who confirmed either share some of the same sources, or the ones they talked to felt freer to speak now that the Atlantic had let the cat out of the bag (or both).

As for the Atlantic being leftist, I don't see their ideology trumping the economic incentive to be first. They know a story like this is destined to be heavily shared and even a prominent magazine like the Atlantic needs that. 

Or Goldberg is attention seeking again. Or worse.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... 30754?s=20

Shep Smith has a new show on CNBC.

yeah, we just watched it..

I used to subscribe to the Economist. I liked that much of its African/ Asian coverage was stuff US publications weren't covering.

Now there are Twitter conflict journalists and randos that can cover some of those gaps. And fuck the Economist's Editorial tone. Just the worst of wishy washy middle ground neolib dreck.

Well this tweet is just magical...

Who hasn't this happened to?

What kind of simulation AI does the Washington Post have?

I think they just wargammed it.