FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

FWIW, CNN reports that "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." Nowhere in the article does CNN claim that the information in the (Republican-funded) operations research is true. In fact, it clearly states "CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations." What exactly is fake in their reporting? McCain appeared concerned enough with the allegations that he forwarded them to the FBI, as did the MI6 investigator.

It is amusing, though, to hear the Birther-in-Chief complain about unverified claims about the President-Elect. Maybe he should send the same team he sent to Hawaii to Prague and Moscow to clear this up, once and for all. Or maybe he can task the journalists for the National Enquirer who Trump cited when he claimed Ted Cruz's dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Or perhaps the InfoWars reporter who reported that 3 million illegals voted in California (also cited by Trump).

So, the guy who benefited from (and routinely cited and retweeted) fake news is now bitching about fake news. I call it being hoisted on his own petard. Poor baby.

It sounds like the were documents a hoax. If true, CNN failed to validate the source and the validity of the documents (can you say Mary Mapes?) before running with the story.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It sounds like the were documents a hoax. If true, CNN failed to validate the source and the validity of the documents (can you say Mary Mapes?) before running with the story.

They openly said exactly that. FWIW, the FBI thought these allegations were credible enough to apply "for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials." Between Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon's ties to and praise for Russia (not to mention Trump's), it would be dereliction of duty not to investigate such allegations.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They openly said exactly that. FWIW, the FBI thought these allegations were credible enough to apply "for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials." Between Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon's ties to and praise for Russia (not to mention Trump's), it would be dereliction of duty not to investigate such allegations.

Yes, but they ran the story anyway, didn't they? And these documents have been circulating for months. There's nothing new about them. And they wanted to have a story that gave further legs to the "Russian interference in the election" story. And folks like you seem to want to believe all of this no matter how idiotic or implausible the alleged "facts" might sound.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, but they ran the story anyway, didn't they? And these documents have been circulating for months. There's nothing new about them. And they wanted to have a story that gave further legs to the "Russian interference in the election" story. And folks like you seem to want to believe all of this no matter how idiotic or implausible the alleged "facts" might sound.

I suppose the irony of the Birther-in-Chief, who has hired Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn to the White House staff, characterizing a report commissioned by his very own party as "fake news" is lost on you.

Maybe his crack team of Honolulu investigators should come back and figure out who in the GOP commissioned this report. It would be a hoot if they found out it was Trump's own Chief of Staff, Reince Preibus.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I suppose the irony of the Birther-in-Chief, who has hired Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn to the White House staff, characterizing a report commissioned by his very own party as "fake news" is lost on you.

Maybe his crack team of Honolulu investigators should come back and figure out who in the GOP commissioned this report. It would be a hoot if they found out it was Trump's own Chief of Staff, Reince Preibus.

Lame response, but I'll assume from this that you approve of CNN's (to be kind) lapse in journalistic ethics. Figures.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by whell

Lame response, but I'll assume from this that you approve of CNN's (to be kind) lapse in journalistic ethics. Figures.

This lapse Mike?

CNN says its reports on Trump intel documents different from BuzzFeed's
[Reuters]
By Jessica Toonkel
ReutersJanuary 11, 2017

By Jessica Toonkel

(Reuters) - CNN, the news division of Time Warner Inc, said on Wednesday that its decision to publish "carefully sourced reporting" on unverified intelligence documents concerning Donald Trump is "vastly different than BuzzFeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos."

CNN's statement came after President-elect Trump called the news outlet "fake news" and refused to take a CNN reporter's questions at a news conference.

Link


Carl

[whell]

Originally Posted by CarlV

This lapse Mike?

Link


Carl

Not at all Carl. The fact remains that CNN chose to engage in journalistic malpractice, while their peers in the mainstream press chose to hold fire on reporting on documents whose sourcing and credibility they couldn't authenticate.

The "excuse" that CNN offered after the Trump news conference, which is the same rationale they gave when they first reported the story, was exactly what you quoted above: "Well, gee, we told folks that we couldn't authenticate the documents." Sorry, but long-standing journalistic practice is that if you can't verify a source, a story, or documentation, don't use it in a story. Period. The NY Times and others looked at the same information and, per the post above, stated: “We, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by."

The NY Times made the right decision. CNN made the wrong decision. CNN now gets to live with the consequences of that decision. They're gonna need more towels to wipe the egg of their faces.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Lame response, but I'll assume from this that you approve of CNN's (to be kind) lapse in journalistic ethics. Figures.

CNN and Newsweek are Soros driven news outlets.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They openly said exactly that. FWIW, the FBI thought these allegations were credible enough to apply "for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials." Between Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon's ties to and praise for Russia (not to mention Trump's), it would be dereliction of duty not to investigate such allegations.

And, by the way, regardless of the claims made about source materials in the story, there are such things as journalistic ethics, or at least there used to be. Those ethical standards served the purpose of assuring readers / viewers that before news was presented is was subject to a level of verification and scrutiny. It also protected the journalist from getting the paper or news organization in trouble by running with a half-baked, partially true or untrue news story.

CNN has now devoted significant air and print time to what amounts to speculation, since they didn't do much to validate the documents before running the story. They went into detail on air and in print about the info contained in the documents - thus giving a wink and a nod to any authenticity issues. Now that the credibility of the documents is in question, it will now be very difficult for CNN to walk any of this back.