http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

If anyone wants to reread what CNN wrote.

Trump is almost certainly lying, even moreso is Reince Priebis(sp?) When he claims no knowledge of this memo stuff that has been common knowledge in certain circles and floating around for over 6 months.

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.



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.



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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Baier is the guy who reported that Clinton's indictment was imminent. You guys are all over the place.

is it really possible to have a "neutral" discussion about the media when it *is* angled and biased? the point of the media is to elicit a reaction. sure they say it's to "inform", but that's not at all what they want.

really, it's all clickbait now. and everybody's got their go-to clickbait. breitbart, huffpost, infowars, buzzfeed, it's all junk and it's all poorly written. but it gets people to click, it gets people to agree and nod their head to what agenda they believe in, and it continues to work. or, it gets people to be mad and angry and have to spout their (typically banal) opinions. and then talk about it on...social...media.

You have a bias where Trump is concerned.

He made a mistake. A bad source but in general he's a solid journalist. He's definitely not a hack.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

is it really possible to have a "neutral" discussion about the media when it *is* angled and biased? the point of the media is to elicit a reaction. sure they say it's to "inform", but that's not at all what they want.

really, it's all clickbait now. and everybody's got their go-to clickbait. breitbart, huffpost, infowars, buzzfeed, it's all junk and it's all poorly written. but it gets people to click, it gets people to agree and nod their head to what agenda they believe in, and it continues to work. or, it gets people to be mad and angry and have to spout their (typically banal) opinions. and then talk about it on...social...media.

Except I don't. I don't even know what to think about Trump because I have no idea what he believes. I never would have voted for him.

But if you don't believe the Establishment including the major media organizations and Wall Street was pushing hard for Clinton and the status quo, I have to say you're mistaken. And I think it's quite likely that those same forces are attempting to undermine a Trump presidency before it begins.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You are so right. We had this exact discussion yesterday after seeing clips of the Trump presser. And we are all influenced by confirmation bias such that we seek out opinions to that tend to confirm what we already suspect or believe.

I keep asking myself, what news sources are credible- maybe the NY Times and WSJ. But then I ask, of those, which are relatively neutral? And to that question, I can only come up with PBS.

Clapper setting the record straight by publicly calling Trump a liar.


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/ ... sia-brief/

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

That report was not leaked recently. Many news organizations have confirmed that they have had the leaked documents for several months. As such, it wasn't like the CIA or FBI had a meeting with Trumps recently and then leaked the memo to Buzzfeed.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Do you make a habit of quoting our intelligence agencies and media??

I apologize to The Hawk

I keep asking myself, what news sources are credible- maybe the NY Times and WSJ. But then I ask, of those, which are relatively neutral? And to that question, I can only come up with PBS.

in america, there really isn't an unbiased source. BBC World has always been my go-to. PBS is still soft left, but it does have a lot of good programming.

Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

And supposing that this is tacit endorsement of the contents, it would make little sense to then undermine that endorsement by stating they are unable to verify the contents.

Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/

This is fake news and very dangerous. It took me about 15 seconds to discover that it was fake but considering it's still being shared and commented on I doubt people are trying to find out if it is fake. They're just making some of the most disgusting comments you can imagine.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/detroit ... ialnetwork


Truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -dads.html

Yes but Greenwald also employs the type of Chomsky-esque arguments you seem to abhor. In fact he does it all the time lately with regard to Russia. Also does it for the Middle East. Why is he persuasive now?

This is fake news and very dangerous. It took me about 15 seconds to discover that it was fake but considering it's still being shared and commented on I doubt people are trying to find out if it is fake. They're just making some of the most disgusting comments you can imagine.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/detroit ... ialnetwork


Truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -dads.html