< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 327 OF 327 ·
|Jan-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Damage control by CNN.
As one commenter said: <What CNN did was basically "Report" on a very JUICY report about Donald Trump which, "While uncorraberated" "COULD BRING HIS PRESIDENCY TO IT'S KNEES" "If it is actually true.....Blah, Blah, B_llshit....CNN Pulled the World's Biggest "DON'T READ THIS REPORT" Clickbait in recent Political News....or NOT News if this report is.....true..... AND Then have the Fu_king Nerve to actually say.....oh, hey, It wasn't Us...cuz We Didn't ACTUALLY SHOW THE False Report to you...>
This is the same CNN guy that staged the fake Syrian Danny scandal. I saw that. This liar guy Anderson Cooper slandered the Syrian government and supported terrorist propaganda and got away with it. He should be in jail for doing that. When Syrians exposed it, Cooper just stopped holding interviews with fellow liar fake Danny, without admitting it was faked or apologizing.
Now everytime I see his face, I keep imagining it in a bowl of fake soup.
|Jan-15-17|| ||saffuna: Again, CNN acted with journalistic integrity on this story. No question at all.|
They reported that intelligence agencies had briefed Trump on a dossier with unverified, negative information on him.
That is absolutely true and newsworthy.
CNN did not comment on the contents. It did send anybody to look at the contents because at that time the contents had not been made public.
Later, Buzzfeed released the contents. CNN had no control over that. In fact, Brian Stelter of CNN interviewed the boss of Buzzfeed and was highly critical of the decision to publish.
I suggest rightwingers, in fact everyone, inform themselves of the facts before posting on the story.
|Jan-15-17|| ||saffuna: If anybody thinks CNN acted unethically in any way:|
Post the CNN video.
Post the CNN.com article.
One or the other.
|Jan-15-17|| ||saffuna: <Actually CNN did. CNN claims that a credible by intelligence committee, MI6 agent, accused Trump that he was compromised by Russia agents.>|
CNN called the report "unverified."
I challenge <chessmoron> or anybody to show where CNN called the former British intelligence agent's report "credible."
|Jan-15-17|| ||chessmoron: <Jim> This assertion from CNN is enough for readers to think this "might" be true: "The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible."|
Do you know that Richard Engel from NBC News actually trying to do investigative work on these salacious claims and found nothing credible?
Where are CNN investigators since October of last year trying to exactly that?
|Jan-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <saffuna: I suggest rightwingers..>|
I am not a right winger, and neither are the Colonel or twinlark. You should know that if you read up on my posts on the nature of the state and on economics.
On the other hand, I see CNN and liar Cooper as proto-fascist elements in US society, lying to their audience in order to serve big corporate interests.
I hope you stop supporting their endeavor or doing apologetics for them. You might end up as a de facto proto fascist yourself, whether you are aware if it or not.
Maybe you don't see it yet. I believe you have good intentions, but you are supporting the wrong guys.
|Jan-15-17|| ||saffuna: Ok, I was wrong and I apologize for that. It was foolish on my part.|
I do not know enough about Syria to judge CNN's coverage. It is certainly possible you are correct.
However CNN is 100% in the right on this Trump dossier story. All criticism should be directed at Buzzfeed.
|Jan-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <chessmoron: <Jim> This assertion from CNN is enough for readers to think this "might" be true: "The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.">|
What CNN did (and not only to Trump) is to insinuate a slanderous accusation but leave room for it to plausibly deny the slur. It's a form of propaganda that hides under the cover of legitimacy and legality. I've seen it dozens of times. Well-oiled mass media rumor mongerers have been doing it for a long time. I call it dragon lies.
|Jan-15-17|| ||saffuna: No. CNN presented real news. Journalism.|
|Jan-15-17|| ||chessmoron: Actually both CNN and Buzzfeed did a great disservice to investigative journalism. I actually did not mind what Buzzfeed published. However Buzzfeed's reasoning to publishing it is quite disturbing.|
Now we know that Harry Reid's letter to Comey on Russia-Trump link is from this salacious and unverified memos.
The FBI has already debunked these memos via NYT before the election which CNN report, that suggested Trump was compromised by Russia, were NEVER reported on.
|Jan-15-17|| ||Big Pawn: <What CNN did (and not only to Trump) is to insinuate a slanderous accusation but leave room for it to plausibly deny the slur. It's a form of propaganda that hides under the cover of legitimacy and legality. I've seen it dozens of times. Well-oiled mass media rumor mongerers have been doing it for a long time. I call it dragon lies.>|
Unfortunately, the brainwashing has been accomplished already by US media, and <saffuna> is a prime example of it. He would give his <LIFE> in defense of the lies.
I hope an outside perspective will help him overcome his blind partisan bias.
|Jan-15-17|| ||TheFocus: <saffuna: Again, CNN acted with journalistic integrity on this story. No question at all.
They reported that intelligence agencies had briefed Trump on a dossier with unverified, negative information on him.|
That is absolutely true and newsworthy.>
How would they know what was revealed in a classified intelligence meeting?
Does that mean that CNN is "not" acting ethically?
Because "classified" means no one at the meeting was supposed to tell.
So where did CNN get their information, and why would they reveal that classified information?
Not exactly journalistically ethical after all.
|Jan-16-17|| ||saffuna: <So where did CNN get their information, and why would they reveal that classified information?>|
CNN revealed no classified information at all.
It revealed that the intelligence agencies had briefed Trump on classified information, which included information potentially damaging to Trump.
It got the information as a leak, from some confidential source, which is done all the time and is journalistically ethical. For example, the Pentagon Papers were a leak. The Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails were from a confidential. That didn't bother you at all, as I remember. (Wikileaks, not the Pentagon Papers.)
It appears you simply don't like information damaging to Trump to reach the public.
<How would they know what was revealed in a classified intelligence meeting?>
They knew it included information negative to Trump, unverified information as they reported. That itself is not classified information.
I don't know about the other cases <visayanbraindoctor> mentions, but on this case CNN is 100% in the clear.
|Jan-16-17|| ||chessmoron: <Jim> Leaks on Podesta/DNC and Pentagon Papers were verified to be true.|
When FBI already debunked the memos before the election and CNN still trying to asserts that there's some truth on these memos (see how CNN reports frame the MI6 is credible to US intelligence), that tells me that CNN doesn't care about truth. They are only advancing their own agenda to keep that Russia-Trump link alive.
|Jan-16-17|| ||saffuna: I am only discussing the current CNN story that the intelligence agencies briefed Trump about the negative, unverified dossier about him.|
As far as I know, nobody has questioned that the agencies did in fact brief Trump and the negative dossier does exist. <What CNN reported is true.>
Now as far as the Pentgon Papers and the Podesta emails are concerned, nobody knew whether they were true at the moment they were released, did they? It was afterward--as was the only way--that they were verified.
|Jan-16-17|| ||saffuna: Here is the statement by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. He criticizes the leak but specifically confirms that the dossier exists and that he discussed it with Trump. Also he does NOT deny that the aencies briefed Trump on its contents earlier.|
Neither at his press conference nor elsewhere has Trump ever claimed the dossier does not exist or that he was not briefed on it. He simply says the contents of the dossier (which CNN did not reveal) are false.
So CNN's report has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard.
|Jan-17-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> <So CNN's report has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard.>|
Let me know how the following has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard..
"..whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible."
Or is that not so subtle an attempt at editorialising, rather than reporting?
|Jan-17-17|| ||saffuna: <"..whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.">|
That's all you can come up with? Pretty pathetic. Not going to claim the briefing never took place <colonel>? Not going to claim the dossier doesn't exist?
In effect you are agreeing CNN's coverage was legitimate.
|Jan-17-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Saffuna> You're not understanding the difference between editorialising and reporting.|
CNN pretended to do the latter while doing the former. Otherwise they could have happily left out those key sentences without it affecting the factual content of the report.
It's like saying there were credible intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD based on the fact that US intelligence found Chalabi's testimony credible.
|Jan-17-17|| ||saffuna: <colonel> CNN reported the Trump dossier story, did not editorialize. |
You so desperately want to say CNN revealed classified information. But you can't.
You so desperately want to say the dossier doesn't exist. But you can't.
You so desperately want to say the intelligence agencies didn't brief Trump on it. But you can't.
So you are left with the weak, WEAK complaint that CNN said the former British agent had a good record in the past. Which apparently is true.
|Jan-17-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> You haven't addressed my point or answered the question. Instead you've erected a giant strawman in all the excitement.|
Get back to me if you want to discuss dispassionately.
|Jan-18-17|| ||saffuna: Sure. As soon as I stop laughing over your comical attempt to tar CNN on this one. You can't knock it on any of the major points, so you find a single line which just may indicate something positive about the dossier, and blow it up into something it clearly isn't.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> So the source is credible and the dossier is not a hit job? Why else would CNN be the first to break a story the entire media was refraining from breaking due to the dubious veracity of the dossier?|
It's more than a single line where CNN lends credence to the dossier. But they are also careful to offer caveats. It's like they're hedging their bets, hoping that it's not fake news but giving themselves some outs if it is.
Have you read the entire article? Or are you relying on biased anti Russian commentary? (As you have been previously shown to do)
|Jan-18-17|| ||saffuna: <So the source is credible and the dossier is not a hit job? >|
CNN did not say the dossier is a hit job or not a hit job. It said Trump had been briefed on the dossier by the intelligence agencies. Period. End of its story.
|Jan-18-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> <It said Trump had been briefed on the dossier by the intelligence agencies. Period. End of its story.>|
Not a conclusion someone who had read the entire article would reach.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 327 OF 327 ·