Drudge links to "CNN’s Russia story debacle came at the worst possible time for the network" (WaPo).
Among its other high-profile debacles over the past month, CNN fired comedian Kathy Griffin, who co-hosted its New Year’s Eve program, after she took part in a photo shoot in which she posed with a bloody facsimile of Trump’s severed head. It corrected a story that wrongly predicted what former FBI director James B. Comey would say about Trump in his congressional testimony. And it subsequently canceled a new series, “Believer,” and fired host Reza Aslan after he described Trump in vulgar terms on Twitter....ADDED: "The specter of a $100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting a poorly reported story that slimed an ally of President Trump’s — and forcing out the staffers responsible for it, The Post has learned...."
Meanwhile, a CNN insider said staffers are furious at “having lost the moral high ground because of this story.” Sources said Zucker tried to rally his staff during a Tuesday morning conference call.
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
It's OK. Most of their viewers are in other countries and don't know any better.
I read the "story" & at it's bottom line conclusion it seemingly does the "nothing to see here, move along". No mention by the democrat operative with a byline of the Project Veritas exposure of CNN.
CNN getting thrashed inside the Trump vortex.
Gosh, isn't it odd how Trump The Idiot continues his winning streak. Must be the luckiest guy on the planet... or...nah that's impossible, I was assured Trump was dumb...
I sort of miss the days of Ted and Jane when the Braves won games at an Olympic Stadium named Turner Field. Wow, when I begin to feel sorry for CNN, they are in the bottom level of perdition.
It's really interesting how the twin pressures of falling revenues & Trump Derangement Syndrome have just pushed the media to the edge of implosion.
What sort of a business model says it's okay to be so loathed by about 46% of the population that they spit at the mention of your name? How many of us here have our own businesses? How many of us would still be in business if we pissed off 1/2 of our client base?
This was just systemic corporate idiocy on a profound level. Business schools in 2050 will be analyzing this market meltdown as an example of how not to treat your customers.
You can't lose something you never had in the first place.
Roll left and die
It only has to be loved by soap opera women.
If they lose sight of that, they're toast.
It's a propaganda outlet. They will run it into the ground to breathe life into their fantasy reality. How much would it be worth to have the ability to CREATE the "conventional wisdom" where Power & Influence is concerned.
They will squeeze every last ounce of credibility from their brand to further their propaganda goals. And when that brand is dead, they will form a new network to promote their fake narratives.
Remember all those "fact checks" that rose to prominence then fell in disgrace overnight? Same business model.
This is only one small part of the Russia story as the Tweeter in Chief admitted in his latest tweets. the Post stories are now correct about the Russian interference in the election and suddenly now Obama is to be investigated in what Trump previously called fake news.
CNN thought they won. But they didn't know what game they were playing.
"Meanwhile, a CNN insider said staffers are furious at “having lost the moral high ground because of this story.""
There's two possibilities with respect to the media obsession with the "Trump colluded with the Russians story": i) they are dishonestly trying to take down the President, or ii) they are dellusional. I have given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed they're trying to take down Trump. But if this report is true, it suggests they really are delusional. Moral high ground? LMFAO.
Maybe it isn't the specter of a libel suit that's worrying CNN, but the fear AT&T will nix the Time-Warner merger, since T-W owns CNN. Who wants to buy a toxic asset and a potential shareholders' derivative suit for malfeasance? Today's release of James O'Keefe's CNN "Russia story is bullshit" expose' was wicked timing. Mr. Market always wins.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/27/cnn-staffers-didnt-resign-over-retracted-story-they-got-fired/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE&feature=youtu.be
Trump 5, CNN 0
$100 million libel suit scared CNN into retracting
Yeah, that would do it.
Moral high ground.????!!!!
For moral pygmies the gutter must seem like Everest.
SO. Much. Winning.
People here are insufficiently cynical. Bill Cosby will not die in prison, and CNN will not perish from the face of the earth. On any given day, you can't count on some plane disappearing into the Bermuda Triangle or some gore spectacle in Syria. You need news that people want to watch, and news that you can manufacture. It's true that the Russia story is bullshit, but it's more interesting than tax reform or high insurance deductibles. Plus, the fact that it's bullshit gives it certain tactical advantages. Don't think of it as bullshit, but rather as a nitrogen byproduct that can be spun out of nitrous oxide or thin air. I think if you look hard enough, you will find someone in the Trump organization who was angling for some of that oligarch money that's floating around in Russia. Remember, you just have to find one shaky deal with a Russian oligarch for another six month's worth of breaking news. Look at all the ratings they got when Sessions shook hands with the Russian Ambassador......At long last, CNN is freed from its morbid dependence on tornadoes and plane crashes. My guess us that Zucker will get a bonus at the end of the year.
'having lost the moral high ground because of this story.” All above comments are warranted. But it is even worse, this statement is truly a reflection of our nihilistic PM culture: since there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, no truth or falsehood therefore reality is a myth and passion is the new morality.
"Moral high ground?"
CNN is moral? CNN thinks Trump is some kind of traitor, illegitimate president or bad guy so therefore CNN has the moral duty to get him impeached.
This is nuts.
CNN is in the business to generate controversy which generates ratings and money.
CNN lost whatever credibility it had with its months long obsession and wild speculation about that lost jet.
Wish-fact left hardest hit.
OK, but there is a legitimate "Russia story". It's the story of the Obama administration's response to Russian "hacking" of the election. That doesn't target the Trump campaign, so Sessions isn't recused from it. He should immediately institute an investigation of the Obama administration and put together a team of investigators and lawyers who don't have ties to the Obama administration. If it's difficult to find a non-tainted team at DOJ and FBI, then he should appoint a special prosecutor. I hear that Rudy Guliani's available.
I'm watching a CNN special right now: "The Russian Connection: Inside the Attack on Democracy". Since I don't regularly watch CNN, I figured I'd learn some damning information that Fox News has been hiding from me. Surely there's got to be something substantive behind all this Russia stuff. 45 minutes in and I'm still waiting. To use the phrase of the season, it's a big Nothingburger. Maybe in the last 15 minutes they'll be the big reveal.
One of the implicit messages (which they never state explicitly) is Hillary lost the election because of the release of emails. I find that implausable.
I think the only actual email they quote in the documentary is Neera Tanden calling Hillary's instincts "suboptimal". I'm sure that one swung millions of votes.
CNN might be bought by friends of Trump while Fox was inherited by enemies. So then CNN will suddenly support Trump while Fox investigates and investigates Russia's interference in the election? You can't tell the players without a score card.
Original Mike: "To use the phrase of the season, it's a big Nothingburger."
It's become clear that some of the CNN talking heads aren't thrilled with the Russia/Trump/collusion hoax.
It stands to reason that there would not be able unanimity on the Russia 24/7 directive from above.
Go back and watch the Allison Cammarota/John Sununu back and forth. It's obvious her heart simply wasn't in it.
60 minutes of nothing substantive. And now Don Lemmon's on to take up the baton. I'm not wasting any more of my time.
Evening newscast since May 17th:
353 minutes on Russia & Comey
29 minutes on terrorism
5 minutes on the economy
5 minutes on trade
It corrected a story that wrongly predicted what former FBI director James B. Comey would say about Trump in his congressional testimony.
Both this story and the Franks story were edited by the same person, Eric Lichtblau. He's described as "an investigative editor and reporter hired from The New York Times in April".
From Twitter:
#MoreTrustedThanCNN:
Anthony Weiner's babysitting service
Bill Clinton doing a sleep-over at a sorority house
Clinton Foundation accountants
Unprotected sex with Madonna
Mexican tap water
Cocktail hour at Bill Cosby's house
Teddy Kennedy as the designated driver
I watched that 'sting' video of the CNN producer. I am less than thrilled by it for a few reasons.
One, the insider FED him the like about 'BS' to the Russian thing. This weakens the point substantially. If HE chortled on his own about them doing this, it would have been more relevant.
But second, the guy says CNN's ratings are through the roof! Sure, they lost the 40 odd percent on the Right but every Lefty with enough self respect to not watch MSNBC seems to be dialing in for their daily 'Two Minutes of Hate'.
So with that economic incentive, do you blame CNN for this? I still do but it is harder to.
a CNN insider said
It's interesting that the Post is using a single, anonymous source. Isn't that what got CNN into trouble in the first place? I'm a little skeptical of this. I believe they're furious, but I think it has more to do with getting caught than it does with any perceived loss of moral high ground. I believe they think they still have it, they just haven't figured out that "the ends justify the means (because we know we're right)" isn't an example of having "the moral high ground".
"Sources said Zucker tried to rally his staff during a Tuesday morning conference call."
Sources say (see, I can do it too) Zucker said, "Buck up, people. I know this Russia mania is sleazy and some of you feel dirty, but we're making money!"
If you read "CNN" as if the letters were Cyrillic, it would be pronounced "see".
Russian collusion !!!
Don't forget the Anderson Pooper story. That didn't exactly elevate CNN's brand.
Gosh, isn't it odd how Trump The Idiot continues his winning streak.
...and with ketchup on it.
Moral high ground? I thought they reported the news.
Ya know, the more I process CNN's justification that the last 6 months of congressional hearings and handicapping the President of the United States over the fake Russia story is really just about bumping CNN's "ratings"... the more pissed off I get.
We exercised our constitutional rights to go out and vote into office leaders we hoped would fix serious problems - like New Yorkers being blown up by the Jihad, families losing their health care, illegal immigrants swamping our welfare programs, creating jobs to put food on the table for American families... maybe even a return to the rule of law, maybe even salvaging the Republic and it's constutional rights from the Establishment Elites who want to rule over our lives.
But I see now, none of that really matters. How stupid of me. What REALLY matters is that CNN's stock goes up a quarter of a point.
Hey Zucker, do you think the public execution of Zucker would be good for ratings? We can pitch it as a kind of telethon, where people call in and vote for hanging, incineration, shark tank, whatever. I bet we can even get Geraldo Rivera to host it.
Moral High Ground!?! Really? Well that is a very subjective thing isn't it?
"You have meddled with the primary forces of nature, Mr. Beale! And you will atone!"
I don't see money as the motive. It's to Watergate Trump and remove him from office.
Money is an attractive by product.
“having lost the moral high ground because of this story.”
Having lost the high ground, LoL. Liberals. "Liberals in hell", I wish.
It's not about money, it's all about ideology.
CNN and MSNBC lost money for years and didn't correct their leftward slant. Now they get lucky from a ratings standpoint as lefties swarm to the few places left where they can feel good about themselves.
My prediction is that we are approaching a tipping point where the more rational on the left grow tired of the hamster wheel and move on to smoking dope and complaining about the dues at the swim club.
All this energy and so few results. And it looks to me like Trump is just getting warmed up for the fight.
"having lost the moral high ground "
Clinging to a piece of wood while the flood waters sweep you away is hardly being on the moral high ground.
I don't think they lost any moral high ground other than in their own minds. The newspeople love polls, except the ones which reveal how low respect is for newspeople.
Someone linked to this piece by Glenn Greenwald yesterday. It is so good that I think it is worth relinking. CNN and WaPo are clearly the villains of the piece. Makes the English, and our grocery store, tabloids seem like bastions of accurate reporting.
I understand that investigative journalists need to use anonymous sources sometimes, and that they need to protect those sources after the story comes out. Otherwise no one would be willing to serve as an anonymous source.
However....when it turns out that the anonymous source provided false information, and especially in cases where it is pretty clear that the source *knew* it was false, doesn't that remove the journalist's obligation to continue protecting the source's anonymity? In fact, once it turns out the anonymous source lied, wouldn't it be best to "out" them, so as to provide some incentive not to lie to journalists?
Otherwise what have I got to lose calling up a journalist and giving them a juicy story made up out of whole cloth, to damage my political opponent?
I think most journalists realize all this. Their behaviour lately suggests that they really don't *care* if their stories are true anymore. In which case, what use are they?
There's something strange going on. On the one hand, journalists and other folks inside the media bubble call this a "golden age" for journalism. OTOH, polls say that more people distrust the media than ever before and believe it pushes fake news. With ABC having to settle the "Pink Slime" suit and CNN's really bad week, they may want to have some assay that "gold."
I don't even think the anonymous source is real. I think the reporter wants to insert a narrative and so he makes up a person to quote.
We witnessed this slippery slope pre-Trump, when reporters had already written the story before they investigated it. They were simply fishing for quotes that would conform to their article's conclusion.
It's a bit like giving yourself a mulligan on the 2nd tee. Pretty soon are allowing yourself mulligans on the entire front nine. Then the back nine too. Later you are justifying a missed putt: "well I usually make those so we'll shave off a stroke". Eventually, you get weary of all creative cheating and decide to just write down what you think you would have scored.
That's the state of journalism today.
CNN in Hell. Hell must be a lot like an airport terminal, only hotter.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा