What would it take?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

People are really falling for this CNN is fake news BS eh? I'm already beyond tired of hearing him blaming the media for everything. Hilarious that's he's all up in arms over leaks now but when they played to his advantage during the election he was all for it. Sad!

Agree,I'm hoping none of these news media outlets don't back down.The're only reporting what it is he is doing,it's Trump that is the shit show not the media and that press conference yesterday should be proof of just how bad it is.The Man had no idea who the CBC was.....not a clue!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZCmOZXBOs


There is a Russian spy ship 30 miles off the Connecticut coast and his only response ...bad,bad stuff,.....what the hell?

[CRedskinsRule]

If Trump had Reagan's ability to speak he would be far more effective. A lot of people agree with his points on the media - obviously I'm one. But I tried to read the transcript of the press conference and I nearly had to gouge my eyes out.

Kudos to NBCNews for this article:
Ignore That Spy Ship Off the Coast. The Russians Aren't Coming - NBC News

Spy ships off our coast is nothing new -

A third intelligence official said that the presence of a Russian AGI off the coast has been a constant for decades but that current frequency is nowhere near Cold War levels. The Leonov last made an appearance near the U.S. in 2015.

The Leonov also transited entirely in international waters. "So it's perfectly legal," said the official.

and, not shockingly we do the same thing

The Pentagon reported that the destroyer USS Porter was "buzzed" last week in the Black Sea by Russian planes, which flew within several hundred yards of the ship.

But U.S. officials say there's more to the story. The Porter, configured as a lead ship in the European missile defense network and with various espionage capabilities, lingered within 40 miles of the Russian coast before the incident.

Officials noted that the Porter, like the Leonov, qualifies as a spy ship -- but with far greater capabilities.

[MTK]

Remember folks, the leaks are real, the news is fake.

Anyone else disturbed by how much TV this guy watches?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If Trump had Reagan's ability to speak he would be far more effective. A lot of people agree with his points on the media - obviously I'm one. But I tried to read the transcript of the press conference and I nearly had to gouge my eyes out.

Kudos to NBCNews for this article:
Ignore That Spy Ship Off the Coast. The Russians Aren't Coming - NBC News

Spy ships off our coast is nothing new -

and, not shockingly we do the same thing

CRed I get what you are saying and actually agree with you on the spy ship ,my point was his response.The Press is not the bad guy here hate to tell you ,it's Trump.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

CRed I get what you are saying and actually agree with you on the spy ship ,my point was his response.The Press is not the bad guy here hate to tell you ,it's Trump.

The nuts and bolts of our disagreement. I can (and have) shown examples of mainstream press putting out knowingly false information to (viciously imo) attack Trump because they hate his agenda and positions.

When Trump puts out knowingly false information, it's usually to inflate his ego, and you discount it, because you know he's going to throw out stuff like "largest electoral margin". It's one of those "if thats what you need to tell yourself" things.

Both groups lie, both groups do it with certain motives. I consider the press' motives far more unscrupolous ESPECIALLY when like the CNN reporter did, they wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment. Yes there is an absolute freedom of the press, but "the press" isn't the same as CNN.

Can we at least agree that a president not calling on a CNN reporter at one, or multiple, news conferences, by no means should be considered attacking the 1st amendment?

[Chico23231]

Its clearly fact that CNN has a strong liberal bias in all forms of media. It clearly editorializes stories that present left leaning opinions within them to sway public opinion and spread false narratives throughout the country....Likewise they suppress other stories, ideas, that don't support liberal narratives. They embellish story, asses blame without fact, and generally make assumptions.

I mean, we really aren't this stupid where we don't see this stuff...are we? Like I stated before Fox and MSNBC are clearly bias and that's great. Go to your bubble. But CNN for a long time simply didn't do this...over the last 10 years I've clearly noticed it. Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, that Brooke cunt, Cuomo, Tapper...They are all clearly liberals who praised the ex president and made it they are at war with the current one.

stuff on the internet which clearly states the case.


CNN has often been the subject of allegations of liberal bias. In research conducted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable networks of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates – by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain faring the worst (63% negative) and Romney faring a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. With the exception of Obama, Democrats tended not to fare well either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative, but both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. While Democrats on average tended to have more positive coverage, the trend was skewed by particularly positive coverage of Obama."[1]

Writer Eric Alterman has noted that many left-leaning critics view CNN as more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics.

Accuracy in Media and Media Research Center (MRC) have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories as well as omission of important facts.


Internal whistleblowing on CNN's coverage of the Bahrain protests:

On September 5, 2012 with the help of journalist Glenn Greenwald, Lyon exposed that CNN International never aired her documentary, iRevolution, on the Bahrain uprising. In an article by Greenwald in The Guardian newspaper, Lyon accuses the network of censoring the documentary because the Bahrain regime is a paying customer at the network. The article also exposes that the government of Bahrain, as well as other governments throughout the world, are paying CNN for special content casting their countries in a positive light.

On September 29, 2012, Lyon appeared on the Infowars program. She described her investigation of how the US ally Bahrain was committing human rights abuses, but said that CNN and the US government pressured her to suppress the news. She said that Bahrain paid CNN for positive news coverage.Lyon said that Kazakhstan and Georgia also paid for positive coverage by CNN.

In March 2013, a report from the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency said the "Slovak main news website" reported Lyon claiming to have received orders from CNN to report selectively and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression against Iran and Syria, and that this was common practice at CNN.

[MTK]

^ What's the source on that?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

^ What's the source on that?

I think both pieces are off wiki

Here a good example about this Russian spy ship:

FACT CHECK: Has a Russian Spy Ship Been Spotted Near the East Coast of the United States?

A quick search of news stories makes it clear that sightings of similar Russian vessels happen with some regularity. In July 2016, the U.S. Navy reported seeing a spy ship in international waters off the Hawaiian coast. In January 2015, the Viktor Leonov was seen docked in Havana on the eve of a historic visit by senior U.S. delegates to Cuba.

Naveed Jamali, a former intelligence operative who worked undercover for the FBI against Russian intelligence, told us the sighting isn’t surprising because it’s nothing new, and in the minds of the Russians, the U.S. is an adversary:


I spent four years working against the Russians undercover and I can say that for the Russians, the Cold War never ended and the U.S. is still their main adversary. They see that hurting the United States is in their national interest. They can’t compete with us militarily and economically and it’s easier for them to bring us down than for them to build up those capabilities, so in essence, weakening the U.S. by extension strengthens Russia. They want to be a world power again, so showing that they can reach out and touch us is a way of making that point.


All this stuff is a non story...this ship and others were in international waters during the Obama administration.

[Alvin Walton]

I laugh every time one of these rags talks about spy ship hype and bomber intercept hype.
Its been going on since WW II ended.
And we have been doing the same to them.
Its just page filler because they cant make up enough fake news that day.
Or maybe Wolf Blitzer is on vacation.

[JoeRedskin]

A recent story by CNN included the following facts all of which I will accept as true. In brackets, I will also include things I consider salient facts which were known at the time of CNN's story that were not included. After listing the story's reported and omitted facts, I will post the headline verbatim along with the opening and closing sentences of the article. You decide for yourself if CNN's characterization was misleading with an anti-Trump bias:

- During Presidential campaigns, it is common for candidates' staffs to have communications with foreign officials.

- During the past campaign, “high level” Trump staffers had a higher frequency of contact with Russian officials and “other Russian nationals known to US intelligence” than is normal for such staffers.

- [Only three staffers are implicated – Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone - are under investigation as a result of these contacts.] Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn

- [The legal standard for opening such investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.] NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...ion.html?_r=0]

- [It is unclear which Russian officials were being monitored by the intelligence community, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers.] Same NYT article as above.

- [Because the Russian government will imbed its operatives in its own and neighboring countries business organizations, it is not known if the staffers even realized they were talking to suspected Russian operatives.][From a Bloomberg report article, cannot find the link]

- The frequency of the contacts and the closeness of the individuals to Trump created a concern within the intelligence community.

- Shortly after the election, both Obama and Trump were notified of the communications and the concerns raised by the frequency and closeness to Trump.

- The nature and intent of the conversations was not revealed to the author of the CNN reporter.

- Intelligence investigators have not yet reached a judgment on the intent of the staffers’ conversations.

- [Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.] Same NYT article previously cited.

- [While still the sitting President and apparently privy to precisely what was discussed and with whom, Obama has never indicated that the communications he reviewed relating to Trump staffers were a national security risk that needed Congressional investigation.] [This is my recollection – If Obama has commented, I would be interested to see it.]

[JoeRedskin]

So here’s the headline:

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign

The opening sentence:

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.

The closing sentences:

One concern was whether Trump associates were coordinating with Russian intelligence operatives over the release of damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. "If that were the case, then that would escalate things," one official briefed on the investigation said.

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

[JoeRedskin]

So was it "fake news?" No. Not in the sense that the article contained incorrect factual statements. Rather, every fact included is verifiable and the adjectives describing those facts relatively unobjectionable - even if some are reasonably disputable. Further, the article also included Manafort's denial of any contact with Russian officials or "suspected" Russian operatives and a lengthy explanation of the same. So, on its face, it certainly would appear factually correct and fair.

However, deception can be by either commission or omission.

- As to Manafort's denial, never once does the article indicate that Manafort - or anyone for that matter - may not know when they were talking to a suspected Russian operative. In fact, the article never even identifies the "Russian nationals known to US intelligence" as individuals who are suspects that may not even be working for the Russian government. Rather, the only indication that these communications were with "suspected" operatives comes from a quoted Manafort statement. The article's author NEVER adopts, through his own words, this characterization.

- As for the rest, I think the bracketed facts speak for themselves.

Again, to me, the headline chosen, the facts stated, the facts omitted, and the opening and closing sentences are presented in a manner that insinuates a malicious intent on behalf of the staffers while doing so in a manner that is intended to create the impression of a fair representation of the facts. IMHO - a deception of the most invidious nature.

[Oh and by the way, CNN and leakers of classified info ... Thanks! Any actual Russian operatives who spoke with Page, Manafort or Stone during the campaign are now on notice that their cover may have been blown. Pretty sure, Russian counter-intelligence is going to be able to identify those individuals with relative ease since the article - and those who leaked the info - have identified the specific recipients and a relatively tight time frame for the relevant conversations. Great job!]

[Giantone]

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

[Giantone]

This is the shit that has to stop.After watching the actual press conference and seeing and hearing for myself, he does this shit!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president...141957157.html

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.