veganfan21 wrote:
You're conflating several things here. First of all, CNN said it could not corroborate the claims made in the dossier, which is why they didn't publish the contents.
Here are some choice quotes from the CNN piece:
"...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."
"... to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats."
"The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."
Only then do they say:
"At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations."
To which they added:
"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."
So they're not reporting on the specific details of the memos, merely reporting the contents of a synopsis of the memos they're not reporting on. Their sourcing and verification of the existence of the dossier and the synopsis, as well as the relevant briefings, are all above board. However, to spend so much time (1) on the details of the synopsis of the memos and (2) detailing the bona fides of the former intelligence agent who amassed the memos and vouch for their credibility is, I think, ethically murky.
The briefing happened, the synopsis is real (in that it exists), as is the dossier. That makes reporting of the briefing newsworthy, but I think the CNN story spends a bit too much time tacitly vouching for the credibility of the memos via the credibility of the synopsis and the dossier's creator. CNN isn't guilty of perpetuating "fake news", but I'd say they'll have quite a bit of egg on their face if this dossier turns out to be completely fake.
Quote:
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying Buzzfeed is guilty of "publishing fake news," then you may have some grounds.
I do have grounds, and yes, that is what I am saying. IF this dossier turns out to be contrived bullshit.