long time guy wrote:
The first report had nothing to do with breaking protocol and this did. You are exhibiting bias also. You and others were cheering intelligence when this piece of non information was leaked and now you're bashing them. There also was a rush to judgment based on shoddy evidence.
I don't think there really was protocol since I don't believe we had ever before had a major presidential candidate who was under investigation by the FBI. Protocol had to be invented.
long time guy wrote:
Now you are saying that the media is wrong for reporting it and the intelligence community is bogus for leaking it. Intelligence chief denies being the source of the leak yet according to you he has to be lying.
I've never said any of those things. If your position is so strong you should be able to make an argument without mischaracterizing what I've said.
First, I don't think the media is ever wrong for reporting facts. But you know very well that reporting isn't simply a fact sheet. There's almost always an angle. People shop for the news they want to hear. You could read the same story in two different places and get two completely different ideas about what happened. Hillary started the "fake news" bullshit and now her supporters are angry because it's cutting the other way.
And I've seen various definitions of what constitutes "fake news" here. Nas suggests it's a story like "Hillary murders Foster". I agree. But I also don't think a news organization gets cover by reporting it like this, "Sources say Hillary murdered Foster. We don't know if it's true but some people are saying it is." That doesn't absolve it from being fake news.
And there are specific reasons intelligence agencies leak things. I like to believe they know what they are doing rather than thinking that they're just a bunch of big mouths. And I certainly never said Clapper "had to be lying". What I said was, he has a history of lying.
long time guy wrote:
Your views in both instances are inconsistent and hypocritical. Fact is if the media wanted to jam Trump they'd have leaked this stuff in the Summer right after he'd secured the nomination. People would not have cared if it were true or not. At the very least it would have created doubt in the minds of many
My views are, in fact, quite consistent. And my views on the media are completely unrelated to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I don't believe anyone who has read your posts on these subjects could honestly say the same about you.