The first to break the Trump-Russia collusion story was The New York Times. Their reporting brought the issue to the forefront of public attention and sparked widespread discussions and investigations.
It was The New York Times that initially broke the story.
The first BuzzFeed Trump - Russia story was mainly about alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. It claimed there were various improper interactions. However, this story was highly controversial as some of the information was unsubstantiated at the time, leading to a lot of debate about the reliability of the media reporting in such politically charged situations.
It's hard to predict exactly. So many factors could influence the outcome.
The first BuzzFeed Trump - Russia story had a profound impact on the political climate. It was like a stone thrown into a pond, creating ripples that spread far and wide. Politicians on both sides of the aisle had to take a stance. Trump's team had to constantly defend against the implications of the story. It led to a greater focus on issues of foreign interference in US elections. The public was also more divided, with some believing every word of the story and others dismissing it completely. This division spilled over into other aspects of the political discourse, making it even more difficult to find common ground on various issues.
The 'ny times russia collusion big boom story' might be related to the whole saga of accusations regarding Russia's interference in US politics and possible collusion with certain US figures. The New York Times may have covered a significant development in this complex web of claims, perhaps new evidence emerging, or a major shift in the narrative. However, without more context, it's difficult to say precisely what this story entails.
I'm not entirely sure specifically which 'big boom' story in relation to Russia collusion the NYT had. But generally, the Russia collusion story often involved investigations into whether there were improper connections between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 US elections. The NYT might have reported on aspects like alleged meetings, information sharing or influence attempts.
It likely influenced public perception in different ways. Some people might have become more suspicious of Russia's actions in relation to the US. Others might have started to question the integrity of certain US political processes.
Some say it's about geopolitical interests, but that's a complex issue.
It likely made a lot of people more suspicious of possible Russian influence in US politics. If the story had some big revelations, it could have swayed public opinion towards believing there was real collusion.
It's hard to say for sure. Some stories might be based on speculation or misinformation, while others could have some elements of truth. It depends on the specific details and sources.
I'm not sure exactly which newspaper it was. This kind of story can come from various sources and it's hard to pin down one specific one.