I believe that 3 is more than 2 but I could be wrong. It looks like Reuters was able to confirm with 3 sources that 5 phone calls were made. Reuters just couldn't confirm who made each phone call.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

3 sources who:

-Did not know who called whom
-Did not know the contents of the calls
-Did not say how they came to know of the calls
-Were kept anonymous

But we are encouraged to believe them because....why, exactly?

Again: Maybe you're fine with this kind of reporting (because it just so happens to conform to your ideology, imagine that!), but this is buuullllshit. Three unnamed, anonymous, sources do not equate to one on record.

Now you want Reuters to identify their sources
5 is a very specific number
No one has reported that they knew what the conversation(s) at 10pm Moscow time was about
The way they found out may be illegal or it may out the sources

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

If you can't name one of them, you probably shouldn't go to press with it and expect people to believe you.



Except for the NPR piece that has a quote from a named source saying that the conversation was exchanging holiday salutations, but yeah.

Just so we're clear, you're cool with:

1. Reuters using 3 unnamed sources to report multiple phone calls that won't say who called whom, what was talked about, nor how they learned of the calls.
2. NPR not being able to confirm whether multiple calls occurred, but reporting it anyway. ("Reporting what others are reporting" is not a cancelling effect, that's reporting)
3. NPR using Reuters' 3 unnamed sources--that won't say who called whom, what was talked about, nor how they learned of the calls--as hearsay confirmation presented right damn next to a quotation of the Logan Act.

That's all ship-shape, ethically?

You should try harder

You believe:
1.Everyone outs their sources that provide sensitive information. That's usually a great way to keep those sources. Deep Throat was fake news.
2. I'm sure every person with a brain believes Trump's team 2nd version of events. The Russian ambassador called at 10pm to wish Flynn "Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas/Happy New Year" on December 29th. Apparently he forgot to call on the 25th or wanted to be the first to wish him a Happy New Year.
3.Reuters definitely made up the story about the multiple sources that were right about at least 1 phone call and the date and time of that call and forced the Trump team to release an updated version of events.
4.NPR not claiming that they have verified something that they didn't is definitely unethical.
5. Everything critical of Team Trump is FAKE NEWS

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

1. "If you can't name one of them, you probably shouldn't go to press with it and expect people to believe you."
2. A source named Circumstantial Evidence is better than 3 unnamed sources.
3. I don't know whether they made something up, I'm saying that such a heavy reliance on anonymous sources is ethically shaky, and relying on a third party's anonymous sources for your own story is decidedly unethical.
4. Claiming to not have verified something, then immediately saying "but others are reporting [using anonymous sources]" is ethically dubious, yes.
5. You're not very good at this. Was Janet Cooke fake news? Bob Woodward got her a fucking Pulitzer.

Thak you Birther Donald

_________________

So the Guardian's current headline online is "Donald Trump starts MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis" or something like that. I'll grant y'all that one: clearly biased and slanted headline.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

He did do that. Did John Lewis bait him into doing it? Absolutely.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Email I got:

Teachers have been asking for more articles to address media literacy in the classroom. Newsela listened. Following Newsela Media Literacy week, we will co-host an exclusive webinar with PBS Newshour and educators to discuss the issue from multiple angles.

Recent research has found that students are not equipped with the necessary skills to differentiate between real and fake news. Now more than ever, media literacy is a critical skill for students to develop as they navigate multiple forms of media regularly. Newsela is partnering with teachers and PBS Newshour to discuss media literacy in the classroom. Tune in to hear from a panel of educators, including Newsela Teacher Captain Liz Ramos, and PBS Newshour Education Editor Vicky Pasquantonio as they share best practices for the classroom and new resources to try tomorrow.

Don’t miss out on the only session: Wednesday January 18 at 6:30 pm ET

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Trump launched his political career by calling into question the legitimacy of the last president. So he brought on that headline himself.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

"Now kids, if a story makes patently false allegations concerning a material fact about Hillary Clinton, or Democrats in general, that is Fake News. If, however, allegations of a material fact turn out to be patently false in a story disparaging Donald Trump or other Republicans, that writer simply made an error--it happens to everyone--and anyone looking to classify it as Fake News is a scheming shitlord who should be called a racist xeonophobe as quickly as possible. Ze-nuh-fobe. Great, kids!"

This Newsela thing seems to be kinda propagandist. It takes news stories and rewrites them?From select reputable sources? And it is being beamed directly into the nations classrooms?
I found this site about a review of the site,its content and founders/investors. Kinda eye opening.
http://www.mommabears.org/blog/warning-inappropriate-education-website-for-kids

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Well if anything perhaps this charge can help set the record straight: it wasn't the "media" that created the dossier story, it was various parts of the government.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Why is the Director of Central Intelligence giving an interview with the press?

Certainly not a perfect agency but it may be because he/they've been impugned by a charlatan lego builder who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Oh? In which government publications was the dossier and its contents discussed at length?

Maybe it was Team Trump and he's trying to use it to attack our intelligence community. I could be wrong but I think Trump just pushed fake news too.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

They've given interviews MANY times.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I am referring specifically to the CNN story that broke the news of the dossier, or a synopsis of it, being shared with Trump and Obama. They refrained from discussing the contents.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

From what I heard, this report has been circulating around DC since last year.

1. CNN is 'the media'?

2. "Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump 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. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible." That's...not speaking on the contents of the dossier? Were they talking about different "allegations" each time the term was used? Because that last sentence directly ties the allegations in the synopsis to the content of the memos, does it not? Yeah, they're not talking about Trump peeing on things/people, but you know full well CNN was using the synopsis as a proxy for talking about the memos. They just needed to do it in a way that would make suing them harder.

3. "THIS IS WHAT THE SYNOPSIS OF THE MEMOS SAYS. ISN'T IT AWFUL?! THIS SYNOPSIS OF THOSE MEMOS OVER THERE ON BUZZFEED SAYS AWFUL THINGS ABOUT TRUMP, AND THE PERSON WHO COMPILED THE MEMOS ON WHICH THIS SYNOPSIS IS BASED IS VIEWED AS COMPLETELY CREDIBLE BY EVERYONE THAT HAS KNOWN HIM...BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE MEMOS!" That's some mighty fine cognitive dissonance you've got here, partner.

_________________

Yes, CNN can't speak on the contents of the dossier if they don't reveal what those contents are. At the time they released the story no one had published the contents. Buzzfeed did later. Again, you've been missing this point a lot but I'll say it here once more: CNN's story on that day was about the dossier being presented to Trump and Obama, period. If you want to castigate other stories for talking about all the sordid details of the memo then feel free, but CNN's story, which really started everything, indisputably kept it factual.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Trump is pushing more fake news but MANY here are afraid to talk about it. Sad!

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Can you not see things you're not programmed to? Once more:



That's directly referencing the memos/dossier as the product of the allegations in the synopsis. If that's not to "speak on the contents of the dossier"...then nothing is.



I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying they deviated from their standard practice of ethics by linking a specific set of allegations in the synopsis to the dossier itself, and then spending multiple lines reciting the bona fides of the guy who amassed the memos into the dossier. The MI6 guy didn't write the synopsis, that was done for the purposes of the briefing. If they do not wish to speak on the memos themselves, why bring up the ex-spook at all, much less go on and on about how credible the guy is? I mean, they're only talking about the synopsis, and if this guy didn't write the synopsis, of what value to the reader is his professional credibility? It couldn't possibly be that CNN, of all places, would want to gently nudge the reader towards viewing the author of the dossier, as well as the decision to brief both Obama and Trump, both as tacit confirmations of the dossier's overall validity, without explicitly stating so, right? That would be impossible. No no, talking about the guy who didn't write the synopsis, in a piece about the synopsis, and not the memos on which the synopsis is based, is merely being "thorough".

I think you're trying to see things that aren't there. Again, to speak about the contents of something is to reveal what those specific contents are. To merely reference the existence of contents is descriptive, not revelatory. To elaborate on the source is to provide more information - they did repeat that the cannot confirm the allegations in the memo, despite stating the credentials of the source. Since you agreed this is a factual story I guess you've conceded that this isn't "fake news".

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

"Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump...The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative...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..."

Nope, merely referencing the existence of contents [like compromising personal and financial information as well as exchanging information during the campaign], not revealing anything at all!



"The source" of what? The synopsis? The former MI6 guy didn't write the synopsis. Why are they talking about the credentials of the author of the dossier in a story about the synopsis? [HINT: It's because they really are talking about the content of the dossier, just in the most general terms allowable so as not to get them sued, and you know it as well.]



I explicitly stated from the outset that I didn't think the CNN story was per se "fake news", but certainly a deviation from journalistic ethics.