Journalist who wrote ‘hit job’ about Joe Biden’s conflicts of interest in Ukraine hired by president
Newspaper faces controversy as readers question reporter's new role with Ukrainian government
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
A journalist who extensively covered the unusual election of a Ukrainian comedian to serve as the nation’s next president has been hired as his spokesperson, sparking ethical questions from both journalists and readers.
Lullia Mendel was writing about Volodymyr Zelensky just two weeks ago for the New York Times, and covered the president’s historic rise in the polls throughout his campaign for the US newspaper.
A recent article she co-authored with reporter Kenneth Vogel alleged Joe Biden faced conflict of interest questions in Ukraine — a purported controversy pushed by Donald Trump and his allies in Washington.
That article claims the former vice president’s son, Hunter Biden, was “part of a broad effort” in recruiting influential Democrats to join him on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, after it had come under scrutiny by officials during former President Barack Obama’s administration.
Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general of Ukraine, had reportedly been considering opening extensive investigations into the company, Burisma Holdings, before he was voted out of the role by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016.
The article went on to claim Mr Biden’s son “had a stake in the outcome” of whether or not the prosecutor general would be removed from his post, so he and his father actively worked to ensure Mr Shokin would be ousted.
However, the article — published early last month — has raised numerous questions from readers, who called it a “hit job” as Ms Mendel announced her new role under the Ukrainian president.
It became a point of focus when the co-author announced her new role on Monday, writing on Twitter: “Thanks everyone for your congratulations. There were 4000 applications. It is a big honour and big responsibility to become a spokesperson for the President of Ukraine @ZelenskyyUa.”
“The Administration will be as transparent as possible,” she added, announcing a meeting for later in the afternoon.
In a response to that tweet, Walter Shaub, the former director for the US Office of Government Ethics, wrote, “When did the NYT become aware that you had applied for this position?”
Journalists also called attention to the piece, with NBC News reporter Ben Collins writing on Twitter, “Hard to overstate how nuts this is. This instantly reeked of a Mercer Special, a clear attempt at Clinton Cash 2.0.”
The journalist appeared to have covered Mr Zelensky's campaign throughout the election, describing her future boss' victory in the election’s first-round of voting as a “walloping rebuke to the country’s political class,” in one article, also calling the candidate a “maverick with no political experience.”
Mr Biden has said he was unaware of his son’s work with Burisma and that he had conducted US policy without regard to his family’s business activities during his tenure as vice president.
Hunter Biden also denied any involvement in probes surrounding Burisma, telling the New York Times in a statement, “I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers.”
“I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally,” he added.
The New York Times terminated its public editor role — which presumably would have responded to a controversy of this sort — in 2017, announcing it would instead favour a “reader centre” and noting social media has allowed audiences to respond to controversies.
The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments