WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/media/33963 ... y-bullshit

Here's an article that puts the video in a bit better context:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 432423001/

The man recorded was a CNN medical producer. I'm not sure how much insight he has into the decision making process at other parts of CNN. Plus, we don't know how much editing went on to come up with that footage or what sort of questions the so-called student journalist, who was supposedly being mentored by Bonifield, asked in order to elicit those responses.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/media/33963 ... y-bullshit

Here's an article that puts the video in a bit better context:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 432423001/

The man recorded was a CNN medical producer. I'm not sure how much insight he has into the decision making process at other parts of CNN. Plus, we don't know how much editing went on to come up with that footage or what sort of questions the so-called student journalist, who was supposedly being mentored by Bonifield, asked in order to elicit those responses.

But then there is this

Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.

On Friday, one of the people named in the story, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, disputed Frank's reporting and said, "I did nothing wrong."

And soon Mr. Scaramucci will be depositing a hefty sum from the CNN account. Money talks, forces liars at CNN to walk.

Where there is smoke.....

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/media/33963 ... y-bullshit

Here's an article that puts the video in a bit better context:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... 432423001/

The man recorded was a CNN medical producer. I'm not sure how much insight he has into the decision making process at other parts of CNN. Plus, we don't know how much editing went on to come up with that footage or what sort of questions the so-called student journalist, who was supposedly being mentored by Bonifield, asked in order to elicit those responses.

1 google and 1 times more evidence than they have for Trump colluding with the Russians.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... golf-clubs

Time magazine has asked the Trump Organization to remove copies of a fake cover of President Trump that were on display at the company’s golf clubs

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
1 google and 1 times more evidence than they have for Trump colluding with the Russians.

I'm so glad that you are privy to exactly what evidence everyone has in this case.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:http://thehill.com/homenews/media/33963 ... y-bullshit

O'Keefe is notorious for editing videos to make them appear the way he wants them to - he was responsible for the videos that claimed Planned Parenthood was profiting over the sale of aborted fetal tissue; those videos turned out to be the real "fake news".

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
1 google and 1 times more evidence than they have for Trump colluding with the Russians.

I'm so glad that you are privy to exactly what evidence everyone has in this case.

Enlighten me, SSS, as to what evidence they have. I'm pretty sure that if they had any, it would have immediately been leaked to the MSM by one anonymous source or another.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Enlighten me, SSS, as to what evidence they have. I'm pretty sure that if they had any, it would have immediately been leaked to the MSM by one anonymous source or another.

So, if evidence is leaked to the press, it's fake.

And if nothing gets leaked, then there is no evidence.

The FBI has spent decades investigating, arresting, and convicting mob bosses, terrorists, foreign agents, and sophisticated white collar criminals. They know what's at stake if they start blabbing to the press, on the record or not.

BackInTex wrote:But then there is this

Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.

On Friday, one of the people named in the story, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, disputed Frank's reporting and said, "I did nothing wrong."

And soon Mr. Scaramucci will be depositing a hefty sum from the CNN account. Money talks, forces liars at CNN to walk.

Where there is smoke.....

This looks to me like a responsible news organization accepting accountability for a mistake. Unlike the actual purveyors of Fake News (including the one currently residing in the White House), who really are deliberately lying and who never, ever acknowledge error. To equate the two situations is ludicrous. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Enlighten me, SSS, as to what evidence they have. I'm pretty sure that if they had any, it would have immediately been leaked to the MSM by one anonymous source or another.

So, if evidence is leaked to the press, it's fake.

And if nothing gets leaked, then there is no evidence.

The FBI has spent decades investigating, arresting, and convicting mob bosses, terrorists, foreign agents, and sophisticated white collar criminals. They know what's at stake if they start blabbing to the press, on the record or not.

Again, I ask you SSS, what physical evidence is there for ANY of this? As far as I know there are ONLY accusations, and CNN is basing pretty much all of it's air time to the accusations. Is that fake news? I would think so.

Bob78164 wrote:This looks to me ...

LOL

Wait! Wait! There's more!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/28/under ... ger-video/

CNN commentator Van Jones called the Russia story a “nothing burger” in the second CNN-related undercover video released by Project Veritas this week.

There is far more ACTUAL evidence that this whole Trump-Russia collusion story is a fabricated excuse for Hillary's loss than there is that there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There is far more ACTUAL evidence that this whole Trump-Russia collusion story is a fabricated excuse for Hillary's loss than there is that there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Just my $0.02, but although I do believe that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I don't think that's what cost Clinton the election. Her campaign staff's belief in victory led to some serious missteps such as not campaigning in several states that ended up voting for Trump.

Unless, of course, those staffers were colluding with the Russians to throw the election.

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There is far more ACTUAL evidence that this whole Trump-Russia collusion story is a fabricated excuse for Hillary's loss than there is that there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Just my $0.02, but although I do believe that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I don't think that's what cost Clinton the election. Her campaign staff's belief in victory led to some serious missteps such as not campaigning in several states that ended up voting for Trump.

Unless, of course, those staffers were colluding with the Russians to throw the election.

My $0.02 is that what cost her the election more than anything else was her 'deplorable' statement. And on what do you base your belief that there was collusion?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Again, I ask you SSS, what physical evidence is there for ANY of this? As far as I know there are ONLY accusations, and CNN is basing pretty much all of it's air time to the accusations. Is that fake news? I would think so.

I don't know what evidence there is. Neither do you. But I do know that the FBI is not in the habit of leaking actual evidence to the press while an active investigation is going on.

I'm willing to let the investigation play out. It's the Trump people and their low information followers like you who are extremely anxious to shut the whole thing down and to cast doubt on whatever findings do come out of the investigation. Trump and his people may or may not be guilty, but they are sure acting guilty.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Again, I ask you SSS, what physical evidence is there for ANY of this? As far as I know there are ONLY accusations, and CNN is basing pretty much all of it's air time to the accusations. Is that fake news? I would think so.

I don't know what evidence there is. Neither do you. But I do know that the FBI is not in the habit of leaking actual evidence to the press while an active investigation is going on.

I'm willing to let the investigation play out. It's the Trump people and their low information followers like you who are extremely anxious to shut the whole thing down and to cast doubt on whatever findings do come out of the investigation. Trump and his people may or may not be guilty, but they are sure acting guilty.

Why, if none of us know of any evidence, why does CNN and NBC and CBS et al keep reporting on it as if they are guilty? And how are they acting guilty?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There is far more ACTUAL evidence that this whole Trump-Russia collusion story is a fabricated excuse for Hillary's loss than there is that there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Just my $0.02, but although I do believe that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I don't think that's what cost Clinton the election. Her campaign staff's belief in victory led to some serious missteps such as not campaigning in several states that ended up voting for Trump.

Unless, of course, those staffers were colluding with the Russians to throw the election.

My $0.02 is that what cost her the election more than anything else was her 'deplorable' statement. And on what do you base your belief that there was collusion?

Just a hunch, really. That's why I don't get involved in the debates.

Here's an article that tries to put some perspective on what happened to CNN.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... cnn-215320

Mistakes by journalists aren't new and they aren't limited to those on one side or the other of the political spectrum. But the right has an interesting fixation on trying to use the mistakes it finds, to try to shield Trump from genuine criticism or to somehow suggest that the investigations should be shut down due to some left wing agenda. I'd point out that nobody shut down the Benghazi investigations for four years even after it became painfully obvious that is was nothing more than right wing obsession with bring down Hillary Clinton.

It's interesting that a number of the Trump/Russia ties stories have come from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left wing newspaper. This most recent one may be the most damaging even though it hasn't fully sunken in yet.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... usion.html

silverscreenselect wrote:Here's an article that tries to put some perspective on what happened to CNN.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... cnn-215320

Mistakes by journalists aren't new and they aren't limited to those on one side or the other of the political spectrum. But the right has an interesting fixation on trying to use the mistakes it finds, to try to shield Trump from genuine criticism or to somehow suggest that the investigations should be shut down due to some left wing agenda. I'd point out that nobody shut down the Benghazi investigations for four years even after it became painfully obvious that is was nothing more than right wing obsession with bring down Hillary Clinton.

It's interesting that a number of the Trump/Russia ties stories have come from the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left wing newspaper. This most recent one may be the most damaging even though it hasn't fully sunken in yet.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... usion.html

Journalists, as well as Presidents, are expected to be wrong occasionally. But as your article says, the line is drawn when it is malicious, and most of the coverage of trump IS malicious. I continue to cite the Sweden comment as proof of the bias. I keep seeing references to this in the MSM, most recently in the NYT's Trump's lies list, (the vast majority of which are questionable at best). He never said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden. He was referring to the report on Fox News the previous evening, and made that clarification the same day. For the news media to keep reporting on this is blatantly unprofessional or malicious. Based on other reporting I've seen, I believe it is malicious. They know what he meant as well as I did when I watched the speech live and without them filtering it for me. People who didn't watch the speech keep hearing this lie, and that is what they believe. This is just one instance, but it shows how they do it all the time.

Is trump innocent? Not hardly, but the MSM has no right to complain, they are as bad or worse than he is.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Based on other reporting I've seen, I believe it is malicious.

Negative reporting on the President isn't limited to Trump or Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/o ... snt-096839

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/busin ... ml?mcubz=0

If the President of the United States sends out a message of Twitter to his 33 million followers, that's news and the Press has the right to report on it and the duty to fact check it. If you compare the number of outrageous things and out-and-out lies Trump has said in comparison to other Presidents, it's ridiculous. Now, I haven't seen the Sweden thing mentioned in months by anyone other than you Flock. If you have some mainstream news site that keeps reporting it, please provide a link.

Fox News went after Obama for everything under the sun and repeatedly said he wasn't acting Presidential and once criticized him for ordering Dijon mustard on his hamburger. And that's not to mention the right wing sites that continually hurled racist accusations at the Obamas.

Trump is trying to pre-emptively blunt the bad news he fears is going to come out of the investigations going on, and he's got people like you eagerly carrying his water.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Based on other reporting I've seen, I believe it is malicious.

Negative reporting on the President isn't limited to Trump or Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/o ... snt-096839

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/busin ... ml?mcubz=0

If the President of the United States sends out a message of Twitter to his 33 million followers, that's news and the Press has the right to report on it and the duty to fact check it. If you compare the number of outrageous things and out-and-out lies Trump has said in comparison to other Presidents, it's ridiculous. Now, I haven't seen the Sweden thing mentioned in months by anyone other than you Flock. If you have some mainstream news site that keeps reporting it, please provide a link.

Fox News went after Obama for everything under the sun and repeatedly said he wasn't acting Presidential and once criticized him for ordering Dijon mustard on his hamburger. And that's not to mention the right wing sites that continually hurled racist accusations at the Obamas.

Trump is trying to pre-emptively blunt the bad news he fears is going to come out of the investigations going on, and he's got people like you eagerly carrying his water.

Just last week, SSS
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ml?mcubz=0
There it is on Feb 18. (He implied) Right.... Last month in a segment on Scott Pelley... Probably many times on CNN. (I don't watch it very much).

You may believe that Fox was unfair to Obama. I don't agree, but for sake of argument, suppose they were. Does that give the MSM a free pass to personally insult him on their 'straight news' programs?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/ ... -news.html
https://apnews.com/0d9b2b2c0fa14812b821 ... ions-trump

FEB. 18 “You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” (Trump implied there was a terror attack in Sweden, but there was no such attack.)

First, Flock, take a look at the meaning of "implies" in the dictionary. What Trump said did imply that there had been a terror attack, when he used it immediately after a statement about recent German terror attacks. Now, I'll grant you that you can argue that this statement isn't a "demonstrably false statement," as the article says all the items in its list are. And if the Times had written an article calling out the Sweden statement as a single or one of a handful of Trump "lies," then you might have a point.

But the Times included this buried in the middle of a list of dozens of out-and-out lies. The clear gist of what the Times is saying is that Trump lies publicly on a scale that's unprecedented among U.S. presidents. And for the press to give him a pass on that in order not to appear "malicious" would be highly irresponsible.

If someone reports that Ted Bundy killed 30 women and it turns out he only killed 29, is that malicious reporting?

My question to you is do you have a problem with the Times article as a whole for pointing out the massive scale on which Trump lies to the American public? Or is this just a desperate attempt to deflect criticism away from "your" guy any way you can.

Trump hit back against CNN by tweeting this video:



Most Americans don't find this funny. But Putin, who will meet Trump this week, is surely laughing at our country.