|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818990655418617856
(retweet)
Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story?
Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable.
|
So given the stuff about McCain, doesn't that mean he can verify if this is all true or not?
|
On January 11 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story? Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable.
Um. CNN's story has nothing to do with the unverified Buzzfeed memos other than that Buzzfeed wanted to hop on the train. Their story was about a two-page synopsis shared by intelligence agencies.
|
On January 11 2017 14:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story? Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable. Um. CNN's story has nothing to do with the Buzzfeed memos other than that Buzzfeed wanted to hop on the train.
What are you talking about? It seems fairly clear that CNN is basing its reporting on those memos despite its refusal to publish them.
|
On January 11 2017 14:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 14:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 11 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story? Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable. Um. CNN's story has nothing to do with the Buzzfeed memos other than that Buzzfeed wanted to hop on the train. What are you talking about? It seems fairly clear that CNN is basing its reporting on those memos despite its refusal to publish them.
CNN claims that U.S. officials including Trump and Obama were briefed on intel, some of which came from a former British intelligence operative's memos. This is not the same as claiming that the Buzzfeed memos are true at all. In fact, they mention a two-page synopsis...which is obviously not from the Buzzfeed memos, which has a more-than-two-page synopsis.
Granted I have no idea what their coverage is like beyond their site because I don't watch cable news to avoid damaging my soul, but the core of their story does not rely on the Buzzfeed memo's veracity.
Edit: I probably shouldn't have said "nothing to do with" but it's unclear to me that the CNN story is anywhere near as unverified as the Buzzfeed one, especially from a journalistic integrity perspective.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's always a fun game to report on anonymous sources without evidence.
|
On January 11 2017 15:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 14:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 11 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story? Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable. Um. CNN's story has nothing to do with the Buzzfeed memos other than that Buzzfeed wanted to hop on the train. What are you talking about? It seems fairly clear that CNN is basing its reporting on those memos despite its refusal to publish them. CNN claims that U.S. officials including Trump and Obama were briefed on intel, some of which came from a former British intelligence operative's memos. This is not the same as claiming that the Buzzfeed memos are true at all. In fact, they mention a two-page synopsis...which is obviously not from the Buzzfeed memos, which has a more-than-two-page synopsis. Granted I have no idea what their coverage is like beyond their site because I don't watch cable news to avoid damaging my soul, but the core of their story does not rely on the Buzzfeed memo's veracity. Edit: I probably shouldn't have said "nothing to do with" but it's unclear to me that the CNN story is anywhere near as unverified as the Buzzfeed one, especially from a journalistic integrity perspective.
Here's the key section from the CNN story:
CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.
Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.
So here's the story. CNN saw the memos that Buzzfeed leaked. CNN started asking questions of people about the veracity of the memos. CNN decides to run a story talking about intelligence officials briefing Trump about the existence of the memos, without running details of the memos themselves. CNN nonetheless chooses to report about how Trump may be compromised. This is what we call the fake news narrative.
Do you know what's most telling of all? CNN no longer is running this story as its headliner on its website. They've replaced it with Obama's meaningless speech. CNN knows that they're in trouble.
|
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad.
|
On January 11 2017 15:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 15:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 11 2017 14:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 11 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 14:01 LegalLord wrote:Trump takes the "fake news" route on this random ass story. + Show Spoiler +Also, Obama's speech seems like something of a departure from the kind of things he would have said 4-8 years ago. The "we made great progress on the economy" shtick seemed somewhat short and almost perfunctory, while his "we need to protect democracy" warning seemed to be the real core of his speech. Also: all those people who said that Buzzfeed is "actually good news site" do you stand by that after this bullshit story? Let's not forget about CNN, who basically ran the story as well. To the extent that this is all bullshit, CNN is just as culpable. Um. CNN's story has nothing to do with the Buzzfeed memos other than that Buzzfeed wanted to hop on the train. What are you talking about? It seems fairly clear that CNN is basing its reporting on those memos despite its refusal to publish them. CNN claims that U.S. officials including Trump and Obama were briefed on intel, some of which came from a former British intelligence operative's memos. This is not the same as claiming that the Buzzfeed memos are true at all. In fact, they mention a two-page synopsis...which is obviously not from the Buzzfeed memos, which has a more-than-two-page synopsis. Granted I have no idea what their coverage is like beyond their site because I don't watch cable news to avoid damaging my soul, but the core of their story does not rely on the Buzzfeed memo's veracity. Edit: I probably shouldn't have said "nothing to do with" but it's unclear to me that the CNN story is anywhere near as unverified as the Buzzfeed one, especially from a journalistic integrity perspective. Here's the key section from the CNN story: Show nested quote +CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.
Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago. So here's the story. CNN saw the memos that Buzzfeed leaked. CNN started asking questions of people about the veracity of the memos. CNN decides to run a story talking about intelligence officials briefing Trump about the existence of the memos, without running details of the memos themselves. CNN nonetheless chooses to report about how Trump may be compromised. This is what we call the fake news narrative. Do you know what's most telling of all? CNN no longer is running this story as its headliner on its website. They've replaced it with Obama's meaningless speech. CNN knows that they're in trouble.
What CNN did has absolutely nothing to do with "what we call the fake news narrative". They based their reporting on testimonies by "multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings" given to Obama and Trump. They precisely did not independently report on the details of the memos, justifying this decision by saying that CNN had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations" they contain. Instead, they decided to report on what they've learned intelligence officials have been saying (and they clearly stated that's what they were doing), which is perfectly valid journalistic practice.
|
Let me try and parse something out, xDaunt, by walking through potential realities.
Reality 1: Memos from Buzzfeed are truly the work of an MI6 agent, a two-page synopsis from them was included in a report for Trump/Obama/Members of Congress.
I don't see how CNN is manufacturing fake news here, so you can't believe this is the reality.
Reality 2: Memos from Buzzfeed are fake. An MI6 agent did write 35 pages on memos, a two-page synopsis from them was included in a report for Trump et al. Someone did confirm this with CNN.
Here, Buzzfeed is indulging in fake news by directly reporting the documents before verifying them with anyone who saw them. CNN is not, and in fact even if they have the memos is right not to reveal them. So I don't think you think this is the case.
Reality 3: Memos from Buzzfeed are fake. The MI6 stuff is all gibberish, no two-page synopsis was appended to anything. CNN invented two officials confirming the MI6 stuff and new research into Russia ties after seeing the memos.
Here, CNN is clearly guilty of "fake news." So I guess you think this is the reality?
I suppose there's also reality 4, where the Buzzfeed memos are real and truly from the same guy from the Mother Jones story but never made it into intelligence briefings. There CNN would be doing "fake news" as well I think.
|
On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad.
I'm sure that CNN spoke to someone. The real question is whether this "someone" happens to be the same person (or a like-minded person) who fed WashPo the Vermont power grid story. See the problem? And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin:
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more.
|
If you were CNN and you had contacts that gave you this story under condition of anonymity, what way could you report it that would make it not "fake news" in your eyes then? Especially since they repeat ad nauseam the allegations are not verified.
Unless this is all about that cute little decision to make "bias" and "fake news" congruent (brought you by the people who complain about changing the definition of -ism, of course)? News being "fake" due to its tone regardless of what reality is?
|
On January 11 2017 16:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you were CNN and you had contacts that gave you this story under condition of anonymity, what way could you report it that would make it not "fake news" in your eyes then? Especially since they repeat ad nauseam the allegations are not verified.
Well, this is the bitch of it, isn't it? Historically, reporting in this manner is precisely what journalists did, and for good reason. However, they very clearly have abused the public's trust. People rightfully are looking at these stories with a far more critical eye than they used to.
|
On January 11 2017 15:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad. And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin: Show nested quote +Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more.
No, this is not "fake news". This is you trying to change the meaning of "fake news". CNN did not invent anything for its reporting or independently make claims with regards to the veracity of the contents of the memos. It reported on testimonies CNN received from "multiple US officials". The fact that you don't trust CNN and its sources does not mean this is "fake news" in any way.
|
On January 11 2017 16:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 16:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you were CNN and you had contacts that gave you this story under condition of anonymity, what way could you report it that would make it not "fake news" in your eyes then? Especially since they repeat ad nauseam the allegations are not verified. Well, this is the bitch of it, isn't it? Historically, reporting in this manner is precisely what journalists did, and for good reason. However, they very clearly have abused the public's trust. People rightfully are looking at these stories with a far more critical eye than they used to.
An anonymous source reporting on what they saw or experience is called a source. Fake news is when you make shit up. Having a source is the opposite of making shit up.
|
|
|
On January 11 2017 16:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 15:56 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad. And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin: Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more. No, this is not "fake news". This is you trying to change the meaning of "fake news". CNN did not invent anything for its reporting or independently make claims with regards to the veracity of the contents of the memos. It reported on testimonies CNN received from "multiple US officials". The fact that you don't trust CNN and its sources does not mean this is "fake news" in any way.
Yes! And Pizzagate is not fake news too!!!¨
Cmon guys, this was a 4chan troll that your "intelligence" agencies fell for.
|
On January 11 2017 18:10 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 16:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2017 15:56 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad. And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin: Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more. No, this is not "fake news". This is you trying to change the meaning of "fake news". CNN did not invent anything for its reporting or independently make claims with regards to the veracity of the contents of the memos. It reported on testimonies CNN received from "multiple US officials". The fact that you don't trust CNN and its sources does not mean this is "fake news" in any way. Yes! And Pizzagate is not fake news too!!!¨ Cmon guys, this was a 4chan troll that your "intelligence" agencies fell for.
if that's the case, the problem is with the intelligence agencies and not with the reporting though, isn't it?
|
On January 11 2017 18:14 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 18:10 NukeD wrote:On January 11 2017 16:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2017 15:56 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad. And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin: Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more. No, this is not "fake news". This is you trying to change the meaning of "fake news". CNN did not invent anything for its reporting or independently make claims with regards to the veracity of the contents of the memos. It reported on testimonies CNN received from "multiple US officials". The fact that you don't trust CNN and its sources does not mean this is "fake news" in any way. Yes! And Pizzagate is not fake news too!!!¨ Cmon guys, this was a 4chan troll that your "intelligence" agencies fell for. if that's the case, the problem is with the intelligence agencies and not with the reporting though, isn't it?
Buzzfeed and CNN are at fault too. The memos were easily debunked (as Buzzfeed has debunked them themselves on their website) yet when publishing the information, they failed to do the most basic fact verify, and CNN failed to do the same thing when they copied the story from Buzzfeed.
|
On January 11 2017 11:25 Introvert wrote:
Meanwhile Obama giving one more snooze worthy lecture. Good bye, adios, see you hopefully never again.
If we could be so lucky. He spent the presidency campaigning. I don't expect an ego his size (not as yuuge as Trump, I'll give you that) to stay quiet for long.
On January 11 2017 18:10 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 16:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2017 15:56 xDaunt wrote:On January 11 2017 15:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So you believe CNN is lying in saying they spoke to sources who confirmed this briefing happened with documents alleging communication between the campaign and Russia? Or that they should have confirmed the veracity of any memos before reporting individuals were briefed with them?
(also, the Trump story is still on the front page of their site and occupies the right bar)
I'll also say that Conway's response to the issue being loaded with factual inaccuracies about the story is pretty sad. And again, you have to look at the narrative being pushed by CNN in reporting the story to begin: Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. You need look no further than the reactions of some of the posters around here to see how the paragraph above is being taken. This is fake news designed to push an anti-Trump agenda. Nothing more. No, this is not "fake news". This is you trying to change the meaning of "fake news". CNN did not invent anything for its reporting or independently make claims with regards to the veracity of the contents of the memos. It reported on testimonies CNN received from "multiple US officials". The fact that you don't trust CNN and its sources does not mean this is "fake news" in any way. Yes! And Pizzagate is not fake news too!!!¨ Cmon guys, this was a 4chan troll that your "intelligence" agencies fell for.
They did have WikiLeaks as a source, after all! Too much of this current story I feel could be on Alex Jones's website just switching names and parties. They're swimming in this credibility gap and surfacing with what amounts to Dan Rather memos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
