The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.
Friday’s supposed “bombshell” stories follow the same pattern. The Times reports that Trump told the visiting Russians that former FBI director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that firing him had eased “pressure” in his ability to conduct foreign policy — though the Times takes Trump to mean the legal pressure of the investigation. (That spin makes no sense: firing Comey created more pressure, which was so obvious the Russians joked about it.)
The Times describes its source as “a document summarizing the meeting” that was “circulated” (it does not say by whom). The Times does not have the document. An “American official” simply “read quotations” to the Times.
The Post‘s story, which reports that the probe into potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign has reached “someone close to the president,” cites “people familiar with the matter.” That does not prove the story is untrue, but the sources are so flimsy that there is no way to have confidence in what the Post calls its “revelation.”
Earlier this week, the Post reported that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told a meeting of fellow House Republican leaders: “I think Putin pays [Trump].” According to those present, the remark was a joke. The Post‘s source was an audio recording of the conversation which it did not have in its actual possession, and which it refuses to share with the public so that people can judge for themselves. The Post did publish a transcript, which it does not appear to have produced itself. The transcript actually supports the claim that McCarthy was joking. The Post‘s reporter has insisted that McCarthy meant his remark to be taken seriously, but refuses to provide the audio.
And the day before that, the Times published the now-infamous story that Trump had “asked” Comey to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The source was purportedly a memorandum that Comey wrote about his recollection of a conversation with Trump. But the Times did not share the memo, and never even saw the document. It merely relied on a Comey “associate” who “read parts of it to a Times reporter.”
These four stories, taken together, are said by the mainstream media to build a powerful case that Trump committed obstruction of justice and may soon face impeachment. But every piece of evidence could be made up or distorted, and there would be no way to know. In the “nut job” case, the White House has not disputed that Trump made the comment, but it may not be able to explain the context, because doing so would mean releasing more details of a classified conversation that touched on “highly classified” national security matters (as the Post reported on Monday.)
In their effort to impugn Trump, the Times and the Post violate the most basic journalistic standards. Publishing parts of a document that you do not possess and cannot verify, and timing the release to cause maximum political damage (right after the president leaves the country), is not investigative journalism. It is political propaganda.
It is the mirror image of what the Los Angeles Times did in April 2008, when it published a story referring to a speech then-State Senator Barack Obama gave at a farewell celebration for radical Palestinian-American academic Rashid Khalidi in 2003. The Times was given a video of the speech, but refused to publish the video. Instead, it offered a mere summary, raising suspicions that the Times had sanitized the event to protect Obama’s presidential campaign. The pattern is the same, from the Khalidi tape to the “nut job” story. For the elite mainstream media, when it comes to protecting Democrats or attacking Republicans, there are no journalistic standards, no ethics, and no shame.
There is a larger pattern to this stuff if you read each media "source" carefully:
First a "media source", (usually the New York Post recently), will put out unsubstantiated allegation, rumor or innuendo, claiming anonymous "sources" or "officials familiar".
After that it rapidly becomes an incestuous leftist media frenzy.
The New York Times will then also run the story *quoting* the New York Post
Then another "media" will quote both the New York Post and the New York Times as "confirming" the story.
After that it begins to grow exponentially while every leftist online blog and cable "news" channel repeats quoting.
The "flash to bang time" before the leftist media is claiming the rumor and allegation is now "an undeniable fact based on the number of media sources reporting it" has decreased to mere hours now.
Then the cycle repeats.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-21-2017).]
Paper A posts a story, Paper B copies the story Paper C posts A and B's story and calls it fact using the magic of bullshite.
Paper A posts Paper C's version, calling it fact and using it as a backing for their original story. Paper B copies the story.. .... Rinse and repeat weekly.
And Lefties keep buying it.... And apparently forgot how to Google things.
Whenever the left agenda claims someone else is doing something (IE: fake news, lying, cheating, money laundering...), it always ends up being them that is actually doing it.
Originally posted by Keel: For the elite mainstream media, when it comes to protecting Democrats or attacking Republicans, there are no journalistic standards, no ethics, and no shame.
The end justifies the means is their credo.
Geeze. How many times are the sheeple on the left side of the isle going to believe that boy who constantly cries wolf ?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Whenever the left agenda claims someone else is doing something (IE: fake news, lying, cheating, money laundering...), it always ends up being them that is actually doing it.
My local radio jock says the same thing, a little more clever. He says it over and over when he tells us the two rules to know when dealing with a Dumb. I can not believe I forgot the second rule.
Im so 'gun shy' of allegations anymore, if they dont have a named source willing to back up a claim, and they has some material evidence, I dont even listen. This Trump is buddies with Russia has gone on a year and I still havent seen a shred of evidence. If there was some, there would have been charges months ago. Its all liberal BS. Everything Trump does is a massive cover up, but anything Hillary did...and there is physical proof...is always swept under the rug. They dont care what she did in the slightest, but they will bash Trump because anonymous sources say he wipes his butt from right to left and uses at least 4 plys.
New York Times (NYT) reporter Matthew Rosenberg discusses "Trump told Russians that fired FBI director James Comey was a 'nut job'..." with CNN cable television anchor Michael Smerconish. This video report is 8+ minutes.
Queue up the part where Rosenberg discusses the sourcing for the NYT story. Multiple, independent sources who had access to the transcript of the meeting when President Trump met with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia's Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the White House. Multiple, independent sources, according to Rosenberg.
The New York Times (NYT) "Boy Who Cried Wolf" reporter Matthew Rosenberg discusses "Trump told Russians that fired FBI director James Comey was a 'nut job'..." with CNN cable television anchor Michael Smerconish.
What ? The New York Times gets their intelligence from CNN ? It must be true.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Queue up the part where Rosenberg discusses the sourcing for the NYT story. Multiple, independent sources, according to Rosenberg.
According to Rosenberg. Who is Rosenberg, rinselberg ?
New York Times (NYT) reporter Matthew Rosenberg discusses "Trump told Russians that fired FBI director James Comey was a 'nut job'..." with CNN cable television anchor Michael Smerconish. This video report is 8+ minutes.
Queue up the part where Rosenberg discusses the sourcing for the NYT story. Multiple, independent sources who had access to the transcript of the meeting when President Trump met with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia's Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the White House. Multiple, independent sources, according to Rosenberg.
So what if Trump called Comey a nut job. I call a lot of people nut jobs and idiots....some on here...you know who I mean. He entitled to have his opinion on anyone or anything just like everyone else. I thought Comey was a nut job from the first time I heard of him. He always came across to me as the typical arrogant liberal that enjoyed the attention he got, let people off the hook entirely, like Hillary, for having committed PROVEN crimes, Shed have lost in a real court everytime with the evidence against her and the PROVEN lies she told everyone...including Congress. He NEVER looked twice at anything the Obama administration did that was at least questionable, if not also illegal. Like handing over money to Iran for hostages for one. What do you think would happen now if Trump gave N Korea a few billion to let their US prisoners go ? There would be riots in every major city again, business and homes burned, traffic stopped, etc....the usual liberal way of protesting. Hes even let Iran keep going with its nuclear programs even though they have fake UN inspections from inspectors who dont have a clue what theyre doing. Even IF they show up at a facility, a majority of the time access is denied in violation of the terms of the agreements.
Paper A posts a story, Paper B copies the story Paper C posts A and B's story and calls it fact using the magic of bullshite.
Paper A posts Paper C's version, calling it fact and using it as a backing for their original story. Paper B copies the story.. .... Rinse and repeat weekly.
And Lefties keep buying it.... And apparently forgot how to Google things.
Brad
That's exactly what I was trying to explain but you have put it in more simplified terms. Thank You.
What the media is doing is perpetuating propaganda, and they know it.
By them using this self-affirming process they are simply following a Marxist principle:
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-22-2017).]
The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.
.
The new normal, its about whipping up a frenzy, poking at emotions, generating ratings and money. A brainwashed public is just kind of the side effect.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-22-2017).]
To use the new liberal vernacular "this is not sustainable" I for one don't even listen anymore to "mainstream" news other than FOX, and not happy about that.. They have lost all credibility and I am certainly not the only one who thinks so. This new model can't last, they a greatly under estimating the intelligence of even their most avid fans.
Proper vetting of "news" and accurately getting the information to the public should not be a partisan issue. This is a whole new level of disgusting.
As for a theory, I think it is a coordinated distraction to the real democrat scandals which if come out will be the biggest in our nations history and should concern every single citizen of the USA...... and the world. This too big to fail and too much of an embarrassment to the nation excuses for not demanding justice and appropriate punishments simply MUST stop.
New York Times (NYT) reporter Matthew Rosenberg discusses "Trump told Russians that fired FBI director James Comey was a 'nut job'..." with CNN cable television anchor Michael Smerconish. This video report is 8+ minutes.
Queue up the part where Rosenberg discusses the sourcing for the NYT story. Multiple, independent sources who had access to the transcript of the meeting when President Trump met with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia's Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the White House. Multiple, independent sources, according to Rosenberg.
It doesn't matter anymore how credible a source is. Some people want to believe or disbelieve so bad that the truth has lost it's value IMO. Ignoring facts has been legitimized by their masters when they discredit truth in reporting with blanket catch phrases like "fake news". Isn't it what authoritarians do? Discredit the institutions and get people to believe that theirs is the only truth?
Never underestimate peoples willingness to be led.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2017).]
It doesn't matter anymore how credible a source is. Some people want to believe or disbelieve so bad that the truth has lost it's value IMO. Ignoring facts has been legitimized by their masters when they discredit truth in reporting with blanket catch phrases like "fake news". Isn't it what authoritarians do? Discredit the institutions and get people to believe that theirs is the only truth?
Never underestimate peoples willingness to be led.
It doesn't matter anymore how credible a source is. Some people want to believe or disbelieve so bad that the truth has lost it's value IMO. Ignoring facts has been legitimized by their masters when they discredit truth in reporting with blanket catch phrases like "fake news". Isn't it what authoritarians do? Discredit the institutions and get people to believe that theirs is the only truth?Click to show
Never underestimate peoples willingness to be led.
That's good because there's been some analysis recently that found liberals are more susceptible to fake news. Especially in times of an opposition party president.
You could google it but you'd probably discount the results as fake news.
Matthew Rosenberg is the New York Times reporter (or one of the reporters) who reported that President Trump referred to fired FBI director James Comey as a "nut job" during the now well known meeting in the Oval Office when the President met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
As all can see, I have posted (previously in this thread) a link to the video of CNN anchor "Smerconish" asking Rosenberg to explain the sourcing of this report. Rosenberg describes it as multiple, independent sources (people) who had access to the White House transcript of that meeting.
I tend to believe Rosenberg for at least two different reasons.
First of all, I believe that the New York Times, as a news organization and as a business organization, has an institutional memory of what can happen when reporters file news stories that are not reliably sourced. Hint: "Jayson Blair".
Secondly, having heard and read much nonsense from Donald Trump, I would rather put my "money" on the New York Times, and particularly, in the person of Matthew Rosenberg, having seen how Rosenberg interviewed with CNN's Michael Smerconish. The Times has made mistakes. Donald Trump IS a mistake.
Did the White House deny the New York Times report on this matter? That President Trump referred to James Comey as a "nut job" and also told the two Russian envoys that the firing of James Comey had dispelled his (Trump's) "negativity" about the FBI's Russian influence investigation?
No. Unless I missed something. The White House has never denied any of that.
That covers my involvement--up to this moment, at least--in this "bombshells" discussion.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-24-2017).]
Paragraphs and paragraphs full of words. All of that alluding to one phrase, "Nut-job". Hence the difficulty in reading endless drabble that often leads to little to no reward. Not hating on you, only letting you know what I see. Slim it down son!.
I am only talking about one of the "bombshells". The report from the New York Times (NYT) about President Trump referring to fired FBI director James Comey as a "nut job" during the President's meeting with the two Russian envoys. And the President following that up with a comment about the FBI's Russian influence investigation and "pressure". "Pressure being relieved." I don't want to paraphrase the NYT report; better for anyone who wants to get the exact text of it online (somewhere online).
I have no comment(s) about the implications of this NYT report--if there are any implications, or, if there should or should not be any implications.
People have posted disbelief or skepticism about the credibility or the factuality of NYT's reporting on this one story.
I just explained, in the post that I posted here, just prior to this post, why I find NYT's reporting on this one single news cycle narrative bombshell to be "credible".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-24-2017).]
or its from a Ukrainian fake propaganda source.
