२७ जून, २०१७
Project Veritas captures a CNN exec agreeing that the Russia narrative is "bullshit" and volunteering that it's all about ratings.
As the Project Veritas website puts it: "CNN is actively plotting a fake news campaign, aimed squarely at Trump--and Project Veritas just caught them red-handed."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२५ टिप्पण्या:
I'll bet they knew Veritas had something on them, and that's why they suddenly rediscovered journalistic ethics the other day. Note that the fallout from that idiocy included a sort of moratorium on additional Russia-Trump stories. I don't think it was just Scaramucci's lawyer that scared them.
Veritas keeps pulling off these sting videos. Dies no one on the left learn? Oh well. Give it time and I'm sure we'll learn it was maliciously edited, even if the full video with no cuts is released.
You mean Witch Hunting for fun and profit. This exposes Cable News for being faked, and that rubs off on Fox News too. I wonder how much airtime this Veritas story will see.
I saw somewhere that he's a producer for their medical segments, so not a big fish.
CNN is now looking at big management changes, says a popular guy's twitter account.
I saw somewhere that he's a producer for their medical segments, so not a big fish.
No true Scotsman starting a bit early today.
Does this guy have any actual inside information about the story, or is it what it seems .... philosophizing about stuff he has no information on while drinking beer?
This is their smoking gun? Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?
Lately we've been tuning into One America News (DirecTV channel 347 in HD), because they actually do present news from all over the world and across America. If there are opinion shows on this network I haven't seen them. But yesterday they said they would have video evidence today at 11 a.m. Eastern time that "another news network is creating fake news." So I expect it will be this PV video.
Interesting these idiots get caught. Quite unsurprising that they are aware they are making "bullshit" into breathless copy. The DNC-Media complex is showing signs of strain.
His analysis was spot on, though I'm not sure he's identified the therapeutic need for such stories to the typical CNN viewer.
It's about ratings everywhere. News is a business.
Converting everything into soap opera is standard.
If 26 million people lose their fire insurance, their houses will all burn down.
The Chuck/Inga millinery industrial complex most affected.
If 26 million people don't lose their fire insurance, their houses will still burn down.
Poor John Bonifield. He is crispy dry toast crumbled all over the floor. I actually feel sorry for him. He has a family to support, I would guess, and would like to show his face in respectable places.
Mark, I know how desperately you want to believe in "Russia!!!" but really, isn't it time to join the reality based community? A CNN producer tells you you're being hoodwinked for ratings and you refuse to believe it - sheesh.
The media are all pro-democrat hacks. hacks hacks hacks.
Curious that they will do anything to hide a negative story about democrats. Will the "ratings" excuse work in that direction?
Every once in a while I try to watch some of the Sunday am interview shows. A while back I switched to CNN and it was a panel of 5 or 6 people w/ absolutely no viewpoint diversity, all describing only one side of a Trump-related story. It was shockingly boring and awful - worse than anything I had ever seen on Fox.
No big giant proof of collusion. No teeny-tiny proof either. So yes, Trump is right about the witch hunt. Which, if CNN really wanted to make a splash, they could investigate and report--exposing the real collusion. But that would be deplorable.
I guess you get more truth out of CNNers on an elevator than on the air.
We cynical conservatives are not yet cynical enough.
The media were desperate to hide Lewinski, and John Edwards' love child. They did all they could to make light of Hillary and her private server-for-cash business. Bernie and his wife are in trouble - no questions from the loyal D-press. Loretta Lynch was in the tank to help Hillary skirt the law - *crickets* from pro-D hack press.
The Trump and Poot colluded to beat their corrupt lying heir to the throne - all over that fake story.
We need to get CNN out of public spaces
I still don't get the journalists resigning at CNN.
Their story had major, factual flaws. Like, they named the wrong guy in a meeting and claimed the meeting was with a group that was part of another conglomerate it wasn't.
That's two *major* Google-able facts. Someone at CNN should be *fired* over that in their layers of fact checkers. But, hey, resign away. I imagine it should be hard to find a new job when you answer why you left your last job, "Oh, my story was fatally flawed and forced a retraction, so I quit instead of fix it."
The CNN producer caught telling the truth (Kinsley gaffe) also said: “Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”
And Bonifield admits: “I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.”
But I'm sure the Trumpski-pussyhat alliance will still pull a sergeant Schulz here and see "nothink."
CNN's Zucker 'Viewers trust us more than ever.'
Whatever you say, Hillary.
There is an issue with for-profit news and political commentary in the 24 hour news cycle. That goes for conservative sources also. You make more money by telling people what they want to hear and/or being Outraged about something.
As a youngster, I used to listen to Rush. He came around when the only sources for conservative views were National Review, Paul Harvey, and Readers Digest.
But I tuned into him one day when there really wasn't much going on in the world, and he was going on and on about some trivial issue. He had 3 hours to fill that day and there really wasn't much to talk about.
So CNN sees a market opportunity with liberals who think they got Trump over the Ruskies. We're all John Birchers today.
Jeff Zucker: Viewers trust CNN ‘more than ever’
I trust CNN to continue being the way they've been for years, so I block *.cnn.*
Also, I'm curious if the left will defend the guy.
Isn't this, essentially, what the left has been accusing all "conservative" media? The whole Trump surge they claimed was because the media used Trump to pump ratings at the expense of journalistic integrity, right?
I mean, yeah, in this case, the CNN guy is goring their ox, but his basic premise: We don't print news, we print for ratings, is what they've been telling us for over a decade about Faux News.
CNN would do wonders for its reputation if it simply published and then retracted a few sensational stories about national-level democratic corruption, bernie sanders wife and her tenure at Burlington college and the current investigation, or perhaps a "What did Obama know and what did he do about it?" in regards to russian election actions.
When the retractions are all significantly anti-Trump, the message is loud and clear.
Any honest person knew all this already. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
This is their smoking gun? Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?
6/27/17, 7:48 AM
You mean you wouldn't, without our permission? That it would be beneath you to rely on camera? What hairsplitting separates this from "47%?"
TreeJoe, I'd like to hear more about the Sanders scandal. Was she just really naive or did she commit "American Greed" style fraud? I'm surprised the bank didn't ask for documentation to her assertions on fundraising. When I bought my first house, I had prove that any material deposits in my bank account were my money and not loans.
Matthew Sablan said...
Also, I'm curious if the left will defend the guy."
I'll think they'll ignore him. Or focus their attacks on O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Remember, they dishonestly claimed the PP videos had been "edited" and those officials didn't say what they clearly said.
The Left has become very good at ignoring or explaining away unpleasant facts.
I guess this morning's spin is "This producer is nobody really, he's not a big honcho, he had a few beers and shot his mouth off.... now if you got Zucker on tape saying the same thing, it would mean something."
Despite the fact that when Project Veritas got some big honchos at PP to admit to some very nasty stuff, they ignored that too.
Hasn't Trump literally been implicated on less, which is why Comey had to be dragged in to testify that, in the main, most of the news reports the past few months about Russian collusion were false?
The Left has become very good at ignoring or explaining away unpleasant facts.
I read the Huff Post story on the Sanders bank fraud story. The comments....almost all said it was Trump who ordered this investigation to get Sanders.
I almost wouldn't be surprised if Veritas DOES have a big name at CNN saying something similar. Since that's usually how the Veritas farces play out.
"Oh, that's nobody!"
"What about this regional director?"
"Just one bad shop."
"What about this national level leadership?"
"THAT VIDEO IS EDITED!"
A double-secret document leaked by anonymous sources tells me my ideas are right, those who agree are right, and that we must keep fighting to discover truths confirming how right we are.
Those who disagree are not right, and it's baffling they don't understand how not right they are.
Some days I wonder if they're evil, have bad intent, or are simply weak-minded and wrong.
Anyways, I'm right.
Now look. No, really observe this thing/event/object/representation over here.
Can't you see...?
Me: I saw somewhere that he's a producer for their medical segments, so not a big fish.
Blogger Kevin said...
No true Scotsman starting a bit early today.
6/27/17, 7:46 AM
Huh?
So I'm slightly less than half Scots-Irish.
Insty:
UPDATE: Late last night I posted a short item about a CNN producer admitting on hidden camera that the Trump/Russia story was “bullshit” designed to “increase ratings”. It turns out that John Bonifield (the same producer caught on tape) is knee-deep in an ongoing libel lawsuit brought against CNN by a Florida pediatric surgeon who accuses the network of libel and wait for it…wait for it…also airing an ambush video. The court denied CNN’s motion to dismiss the case (the ambush video was not part of the claim) and the parties are apparently waging war about discovery.
SUPER IRONY BONUS: “The Most Trusted Name in News” sought and obtained a protective order preventing any of the parties from talking to the public about discovery. Because, you know, champions of transparency and the right to know.
How Clintonesque. Lying liars who lie - smoked out. Faster, please.
Embarrassing that so many public spaces like airports and bank lounges have CNN on. Embarrassing.
waterfall decline?
Curious that they will do anything to hide a negative story about democrats. Will the "ratings" excuse work in that direction?
The left is about direct action, the right is about side effects.
You can't do soap opera about side effects. Too much thought where you want feelings.
The left pols free-ride on the news biz necessity. If anything the media run the pols.
There's right wing ratings for outrage at the media, but it's parasitic on the basic soap opera structure of the left.
The mainstream media is prosecutor when interests diverge, and defense when they align.
It will take more than a gratuitous mea culpa for CNN to regain any semblance of credibility. But it's not just CNN. There is no major news network that can be trusted.
Why the massive changes at CNN on Russian coverage?
My guess a huge threat to the network either of most new or reputation. The CEO would not be involved otherwise.
Guesses:
1. The story being pulled, seems business as usual. Threat of lawsuit the same. May be I'm wrong, and don't know enough legal / lawyer to see the size of the threat.
2. Or did an opinion poll come out that CNN saw and their reputation was cratering on the Russia scandal?
3. Or they heard about this Project Veritas video? O'Keef took down Acorn with a similar video. I'm still amazed at that. PP only survived due to friendly coverage from the MSM. Of the 3, I see this as the biggest threat.
Blogger Mark said...
"Does this guy have any actual inside information about the story, or is it what it seems .... philosophizing about stuff he has no information on while drinking beer?
This is their smoking gun? Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?"
Exactly Mark. They seem desperate to shoot down the Russia story, so much so that that they grasp on to any tidbit that comes along. The Russia investigation is ongoing, the story isn't over by a long shot, despite all the wishcasting.
Inga, the guy admitted CNN lies. Just admit, you enjoy the lie, you want the lie to be true.
You're being lied to and you don't care.
Of course Inga wants the lie to be true. It's called hope.
Can't wait for the next segment! Wish we could binge watch these :)
I'm conservative and have felt exasperated and angry at the "Russian collusion" narrative. Trump won fair and square, and the "Russia!" narrative has felt like a liberal-created fiction the entire time to me. But... at some moments I would wonder if I've gotten too partisan -- if my right-wing glasses have gotten too thick. Is there something there I'm not seeing?
Nope, turns out I was right all along.
The Russia investigation can be ongoing for 100 years, like the search for a way to turn lead into gold. Doesn't mean there's anything to it.
But the latest Trump tweet now confirms that the Russian story is not fake news as the Post publishes facts about Obama's knowledge of Russia/Putin tampering with our election process. I believe Trump in this case.
But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.
Wish-facts, lies, delusion - false hope for the party base. Walker will be indicted any minute now! Just watch, you fools.
Hiccup
Forget Russia! The most telling comments from Bonifield concern his views of "the media."
“It’s a business,” Bonifield says in the video. “People are like the media has an ethical … But, all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business.
So we have "Freedom of the Press", and we have "It's a business.", and that's the problem. Unlike in former times, there is no effort at all to be objective or fair. CNN, NYT, WSJ, National Enquirer—they're all peas (pees?) in the same pod.
They get protection under the Constitution, as well they should, but they've abdicated any responsibility to present information in an objective, true manner. There seems to be a spin to one degree or another on EVERYTHING.
My guess is that the Founders would have narrowed the definition of freedom of the press had they known how ignoble the press would have become.
I guess that ship has sailed ...
Give it time and I'm sure we'll learn it was maliciously edited, even if the full video with no cuts is released.
Obviously. I still here from people that the PP videos from Center for Medical Progress were deceptively edited.
This conversation has more smoke than brought on the Trump-Russia investigation.
"The Russia investigation is ongoing,..."<
I enjoyed Bonifield ridiculing this line.
like the search for a way to turn lead into gold
That paid off, giving us the science of astrology.
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
My guess is that the Founders would have narrowed the definition of freedom of the press had they known how ignoble the press would have become.
They controlled their own partisan newspapers with plenty of scurrilous attacks. Didn't Jefferson have one edited in the WH, or was that Jackson?
Journalism has been replaced by entertainment and CNN is just giving their fans what they want.
In fact, I've heard that CNN has renewed "Russia, Russia, Russia" for a second season. Season 1 should be available on Netflix soon.
Rope
@Mark 0748/Inga At least we are hearing this "news" right from the mouth of the source. That's a hell of a lot better than CNN does.
Ha! Trump has weighed in on the Project Veritas tape:
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!
7:30 AM - 27 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!
7:47 AM - 27 Jun 2017
Well, at least T isn't learning about this stuff way after the fact on TV. RME
More and more Americans are happy about Trump's tweets. Truth up against Stalinist liar leftwing D-crap industrial complex.
The el perfecto part is that the CNN guy has a Chick-Fil-A cup in his hand.
He's dead meat now. Giving away the game: bad, sure, but doing it after eating h8 chicken...? Doom on him.
Tarrou tersely observes: Rope
Yep.
I'd be interested in the back story of how that interviewer gained the trust of the CNN producer. I'd also be interested in seeing how this producer's life turns out. Will CNN fire him, or will they say this was just some harmless locker room talk? If they fire him, perhaps Fox can hire him to report on the media. Maybe he knows some other stories or is friendly with other CNN staffers who are disgruntled. Just looking at Zucker, you can tell that he doesn't have a lot of gruntled subordinates.......This producer could very well be the Gretchen Carlson of CNN. After him, the dams will burst, and Dan Lemon will confess to making that shit up as he goes along.
Good on CNN for shielding Democrats from reality, the poor dears.
"we don't have any big giant proof . . . "
They don't have any little tiny proof either.
Not even a theory that makes sense.
Trump 3, CNN 0
Not sufficient, not clear enough, except for us conservatives.
It wouldn't be. Do you really think that CNN execs sit twirling their mustaches, chuckling to themselves about how the are fooling the rube liberals out there? Bwa-ha-ha! They do what they do because they believe it themselves. They are as deluded as their victims.
So this guy is not overjoyed because he sees that they got nothing so far, but since Trump is a demon he believes that if you push hard enough you'll finally get to see his horns. Plus there's ratings.
Exposing that fuzziness is worthwhile, but it's the best Veritas can hope for.
They controlled their own partisan newspapers with plenty of scurrilous attacks. Didn't Jefferson have one edited in the WH, or was that Jackson?
Jefferson and Madison set up, through a friend, a newspaper called National Gazette, which they used to print hit pieces on Adams, Hamilton, and Washington.
William said...
My guess is that the Founders would have narrowed the definition of freedom of the press had they known how ignoble the press would have become.
I think you have this backward. They wanted freedom of the press precisely because they understood the base nature of journalism and how easily its practitioners could be captured by government and other powerful institutions. By guaranteeing freedom of the press the founders empowered challengers of the establishment.
Do you really think that CNN execs sit twirling their mustaches, chuckling to themselves about how the are fooling the rube liberals out there? Bwa-ha-ha! They do what they do because they believe it themselves.
I doubt it. These guys have been in the business long enough to smell a rat - they know it isn't true, just like they knew the peeing story wasn't true. That's why, instead of getting actual reporting on wrongdoing we get innuendo and the "just asking questions" shuck and jive.
"My guess is that the Founders would have narrowed the definition of freedom of the press had they known how ignoble the press would have become.
I guess that ship has sailed ..."
I think the Founders were well aware of how partisan the press can be. Some of them even participated in partisan newspaper reporting. I suspect they never expected that the press would be so uniformly partisan for one team.
"I think the Founders were well aware of how partisan the press can be."
Yes, but I expect they thought anyone able to read was smart enough to see through blatant lies.
Now, TV does not require any intelligence and lies are more effective
Jason said...
The Russia investigation can be ongoing for 100 years, like the search for a way to turn lead into gold. Doesn't mean there's anything to it.
6/27/17, 9:38 AM
Except, you actually can turn lead into gold. It is just that there is no ROI on it.
Nuclear experiments have successfully transmuted lead into gold, but the expense far exceeds any gain. Sort of like relying on CNN for "real" news, not worth the ROI...
Inga said... The Russia investigation is ongoing, the story isn't over by a long shot, despite all the wishcasting.
The John Doe investigation of Scott Walker is ongoing--expect serious charges to come out any day now. Any day now. Any...day...now...
I remember the successful investigations into Bob McDonnell and Ted Stevens too.
The thing to remember is that CNN is not in the business of providing news.
CNN is in the advertising business. If they can corral eyeballs, they can sell ads. Eyeballs sell ads. Ads pay for everything, and everyone.
Once, a long time ago, the big three nets willingly took a loss on the news divisions because of, prestige or something. That was a long time ago. But CNN has no entertainment division to provide the bucks. News has always had to be profitable at CNN.
CNN will pursue the stories that get eyeballs, and clicks.
Once, a long time ago, the big three nets willingly took a loss on the news divisions because of, prestige or something.
Back then they didn't have any viable competition, and the government would take that kind of thing into account when their licenses came up for renewal.
David said..."They don't have any little tiny proof either.
Not even a theory that makes sense."
Yeah, what is the theory, anyway? I'd love to have a true believer explain it.
There was a feature in the NTY a few weeks (months?) ago focusing on CNN. They in part chronicled a brief time in the production room during a live broadcast, and I recall being surprised at how tightly and heavily produced it was in terms moment-to-moment management of what the hosts and camera people focus on. It was a reminder that first and foremost the Jeff Zucker version of CNN is a business. The concept of the "news business" is not novel though and past academic research has revealed that news organizations don't develop editorial slants to influence their readers/listeners/watchers - it's the consumers who shape the organizations through their own tastes. This is an important concept because the relationship is exactly backwards relative to what people generally think it is, and what they are generally yelling about with the "fake news" accusations.
CNN is catering to a particular demographic in the same way that Fox and MSNBC cater to a particular demographic. CNN is not making the investigations into the Russian influence up. These investigations exist and are a regular focus of CNN programming, and the ultimate usefulness of that programming in chronicling history as it's being made will only be revealed by time. Was this a wild goose chase that will make CNN look ultmately foolish in spending so much time and credibility on it? Will the investigation bear shocking fruit at some point, or has it already? Something in between? Not one of us can know right now. And that includes this CNN producer on medical segments who expresses a personal opinion that if there was something there it would have already leaked. How would he know?
People need to be realistic about what stings like this are. They contain real information of course, but they are pursued, shaped, edited and produced to tell a particular story, and they depend on a receptive and eager audience to fill in the blanks. This piece does not reveal that CNN is deliberately creating a false narrative. It does not reveal that CNN is fake news. It does not reveal that the Russia investigation is an empty suit. It reveals what people should already know: news is a business that needs to care about financial well being and has not always adjusted to the pressures on it in ideals ways, leaving many in its orbit cynical and creating a requirement for news consumers to consume critically.
I find irony and some alarm in the fact that people seem so blindly eager to drum away the liberal media as Pravda when it is in fact the President who seems to be trying to cultivate an ipso facto state media with Fox and other right leaning coverage. A free press is so vital to democracy, and the degree that people seem to be willing to fall on these organizations seemingly wishing they could be destroyed is worrisome in an age where the president himself is leading that charge. It seems to me that the possibility of cutting a leg off democracy is as real as its ever been in the modern area. There is a difference between "fake news" and news that doesn't conform to your preferred focus and editorial comfort zone, and it is essential that people make that distinction.
Someone above questioned the, "No true Scotsman," phrase, implying it didn't reflect his true heritage. Not that I know a lot about it but that phrase is a logical fallacy in argument, denying the facts by questioning the deliverer. Or something. You can look it up, I'd tell you where but I lost the phone number.
A second logical fallacy was used in the thread, "Tu Quoque," which means, "You too." This fallacy denies a fact by pointing out that the arguer has done equally or worse offenses. It was Mark who wrote:
"Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?"
Logic is a very complicated subject, there's a math to it, so I struggle with it. Unfortunately there is no, "logic check," like spell check that would make argument easier to understand. Could there be an app here?
The idea of freedom of the press was brought here by the Dutch settlers of the Hudson Valley and it meant the freedom to print anything you wanted on the printing press you owned. I'm not sure how those old Dutch would have reacted to pornography, they had higher ideals. They brought this notion with them from the old country stuck in a Europe bled dry by religious strife. The press today, or daily journalism, is not quite a monopoly or trust but close. Aided by government interference. If a la carte programming was allowed for cable most of the news (very fake news) channels would be gone.
"They contain real information of course, but they are pursued, shaped, edited and produced to tell a particular story, and they depend on a receptive and eager audience to fill in the blanks."
Project Veritas produced two sets of each PP video. One was edited; the other was not and was very long. PV purposely did that to avoid the accusation that they were engaged in "deceptive editing." The media deceptively claimed they did anyway.
James O'Keefe is one of the few real journalists out there.
Snark: "It is not... It is not... It is not..."
Actually, it is exactly and explicitly all of those things. The fact that you simply state "Nuh uh" without even an attempt to establish it shows you're aware of it, and are merely desperate to provide cover.
"Project Veritas produced two sets of each PP video. One was edited; the other was not and was very long. PV purposely did that to avoid the accusation that they were engaged in "deceptive editing." The media deceptively claimed they did anyway."
My point wasn't that the editing was deceptive, simply that there is always editing in these things, and as editing often does by design it narrows and focuses the story to reflect the goals of the piece. This was a piece that had goals. The choosing of a subject, the questions asked, the narrating - and the editing - were in pursuit of those goals, and that's an important context.
Cue the "deceptive editing" BS.
"Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?"
Now, that was laugh-out-loud funny. What evidence has the left produced? Golden showers?
"Actually, it is exactly and explicitly all of those things. The fact that you simply state "Nuh uh" without even an attempt to establish it shows you're aware of it, and are merely desperate to provide cover.
The comment was long enough as it was, don't you think? The fact that the Russia investigation is not even complete is the basic point I made that supports those arguments. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said that people are eager to fill in the blanks. You've filled in a bunch of blanks and have reached conclusions that are not in fact supported by the information in the video.
"...Does that mean we can implicate Trump by similar evidence and you will accept it?"
If there was audio plus video evidence of Trump whispering to the head of Russia that after the election he would have more flexibility, then yeah, I'd probably be more willing to consider the possibility that some collusion had taken place.
"...we don't have any big giant proof.."
An additional outrage, here, is that this inarticulate, ignorant, and corrupt/hyperpartisan non-entity is a producer for CNN. In the old days, even as biased as they were, the alphabet networks did not see themselves as competitors with the entertainment shows.
Snark said...
The fact that the Russia investigation is not even complete is the basic point I made that supports those arguments. You are a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said that people are eager to fill in the blanks. You've filled in a bunch of blanks and have reached conclusions that are not in fact supported by the information in the video.
6/27/17, 1:00 PM
As others have pointed out [in various ways], when is the investigation done? I recall a specific set of "John Doe" investigations that we only done when the state Supreme Court forced the matter. I remember some investigations that were only done after Scooter Libby was finally "caught" in an inconsequential "lie" that had nothing to do with the initial investigation.
I also remember investigations that found nothing of consequence: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, a certain private email server, some government fellow that stuffed important papers down his trousers to smuggle them out of the building, a IRS issue, some uranium ofr some charitable donations, etc.
Funny how some "investigations" seem to be done before they start no matter how big the flames while others go on and on despite not even a hint of smoke...
"Not one of us can know right now. And that includes this CNN producer on medical segments who expresses a personal opinion that if there was something there it would have already leaked. How would he know?"
Common sense.
Release the Clinton Impeachment Files!
"I also remember investigations that found nothing of consequence: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, a certain private email server, some government fellow that stuffed important papers down his trousers to smuggle them out of the building, a IRS issue, some uranium ofr some charitable donations, etc."
-- All of those things found major things of consequence. Benghazi we learned that security concerns were ignored and that Clinton and Obama lied about not knowing the reason behind the attacks.
F&F we learned that Holder and others lied to Congress and that they attempted to force gun stores to illegally sell guns to people that the gun stores knew were threats or could not legally buy guns. We also learned that the government's failed program lead to terrorists, drug cartels and others getting weapons -- something we never would have learned of without the investigation.
The private email server showed us the willful neglect of security procedures, showed us that Clinton's team destroyed subpoenaed evidence and lied to Congress.
The IRS issue showed us systematic corruption and targeting of Conservative groups, so much so that even the IRS agreed to start making changes. We also learned that the IRS destroyed several hard drives and records they were legally required to keep, exposing another major error in how the government was handling itself.
The uranium-for-donations investigation is the only one that, maybe, turned up nothing. It, however, turned up significantly more evidence of collusion/pay-to-play than anything we've seen with Trump.
"People need to be realistic about what stings like this are. They contain real information of course, but they are pursued, shaped, edited and produced to tell a particular story, and they depend on a receptive and eager audience to fill in the blanks."
-- This only works for when the people reporting do not provide the entire video. For example, Katie Couric's gun expose that did not reveal the whole video DID do deceptive edits to produce a particular story, one only refuted because the people she tried to use the editing trick on HAD the full video. If you reveal the whole video, then there are no blanks to fill in.
Snark,
Common sense should tell anyone with an IQ above room temperature that there is going to be no proof of the Russian Collusion story. If there was any solid evidence supporting it, it would have leaked in the last 7 months, and if the FBI and Obama and his minions really were on the case since last August (I think that was a lie, too)- it would leaked before November 8th. However, as of today, it is still nothing but innuendo- not one single piece of factual evidence supporting the narrative has leaked out- not one. The entirety of the support linked here by Inga, for example, consists of the narrative being investigated by the believers of the narrative- it is all circular reasoning.
When Mueller closes this investigation this Fall, some people in the media are likely going to have a lot explaining and further lying to do.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- All of those things found major things of consequence.
6/27/17, 1:54 PM
Maybe for those that actually cared but the reality is that in all of those instances [where non-Republicans] were involved, NO ONE was actually punished no matter how deserved whereas in the other cases, folks were no matter how undeserved.
I'm shocked . . . absolutely shocked. I mean, if you can't believe "liberals"--people whose socioeconomic agenda is, essentially, legalized looting, and who trace their philosophy back to the "No truth but socialist truth" gang--who can you trust?
Eh, Hillary Clinton isn't president. You take your come uppance where you can get it. I mean, Option B wasn't my first to nth choice either, but, hey. Silver linings.
Inga: "The Russia Collusion narative is true, even if CNN Execs publicly admit they faked the whole thing"
This is why I regard you as a traitor. You are okay with a duly elected President of the United States being brought down by what you know to be kues. Simply because your side lost the election. You are not an American.
What you know to be LIES
Trump should break into the MSM's comfort zone. There are maybe a dozen "journalists" from CNN, NYTs and WaPo that have recieved CLASSIFIED information. Jail then all until they reveal their sources, then send the leakers to Leavenworth. Freedom of the Press does not cover printing state secrets.
And not just the "journalists", but the Executives and Owners as well - anyone who conspired with it had a responsibility to vet anonymous sources from the Intelligence services.
And don't back down. If a Christine Amonpour or a Chuck Todd declare they will never give up the agents who leaked. FINE. Life imprisonment in solitary. You just let us know when you're ready to cough up names.
This piece does not reveal that CNN is deliberately creating a false narrative. It does not reveal that CNN is fake news. It does not reveal that the Russia investigation is an empty suit.
Wanna bet ?
It's going to be fun to watch Inga and Chuck squirm in the upcoming days, as they destroy what little is left of their credibility.
SEE, Project Veritas uses the slow leak strategy, this is just the first drop. They let the target make up denials and then they drop another bomb. Over and over again. Like this:
Inga: "It does not reveal that CNN deliberately - "
Veritas: Day 2. CNN reporter admits on tape it was deliberate
Inga: "Well..so what... lone wolf reporter... that doesn't mean the Executives knew - "
Veritas: Day 4. CNN Executive admits on tape that he knew Russia story was fake
Inga: "But that's only one single - "
Veritas: Day 7. Three more Senior Executives on tape admit CNN pushed fake Russia story.
Inga: "Rogue cell inside CNN with no oversight - "
Veritas: Day 8. Videotape of CNN Owner telling Inga 'we made the whole thing up'
Inga: But... but... FAUX NEWS!
Thanks poker1one, it didn't make sense to me, but I don't think it applies to my comment "so not a big fish". My point was that it would be even bigger news if the guy had been a senior political news producer, but the guy obviously knows what's going on at CNN.
From Wikipedia: For the practice of wearing a kilt without undergarments, see True Scotsman.
CNN is being gutted like a fish by Trump/Breitbart/O'Keefe and Hannity.
Absolutely Epic.
Real Americans have spoken. We want our country back. Our jobs were being sent to Mexico and China. Our taxes were being spent on illegals, refugees, and welfare leaches.
My healthcare is too expensive ($800/month for my family). Time to step away from socialism and let the capitalism work. My car insurance is just $25 per month (Insurance Panda) and my internet is just $30/month from RNC. Let the free market handle health insurance!
Hillary will look good wearing prison orange rather that those 15k white suits.
Hillary will look good wearing prison orange rather that those 15k white suits.
No she won't, but I'll be glad to see it.
Not one of us can know right now. And that includes this CNN producer on medical segments who expresses a personal opinion that if there was something there it would have already leaked. How would he know?
Because his rolodex (dating myself, there) is full of Mark Felt types who would love to leak details of any operation or investigation that would hurt Trump. When historians describe the leaking of confidential, classified, and privileged information from the Trump administration, they should probably just list what didn't get leaked. DOJ has been acting as an arm of the Democratic party for about five years now, and Trump ought to dismiss or sideline the top three or four layers of management.
Hillary will look good wearing prison orange rather that those 15k white suits.
Will Lynch take the fall for the Clintons?
Leftmedia persistently refers to Veritas as "discredited." That would be wishful thinking.
Evidently, the Russia defamation goes way beyond wishful thinking into the realm of corrupt fabrication.
hombre:
Left and left-of-center refer to Veritas as discredited or fringe. This coming from the twilight fringe is probably an unintended compliment.
"William said...
My guess is that the Founders would have narrowed the definition of freedom of the press had they known how ignoble the press would have become.
I guess that ship has sailed ..."
Given the knockdown nature of the press during and after the Founder's era, I doubt that very much. They knew they wanted to protect anonymous, pseudonymous and scurrilous printings because there were plenty of them then.
Those of us of a certain age have a tendency to think of The Press in terms of the post-WWII broadcast monoliths, newly freed from the explicit propaganda requirements of the War, but still patriotic to the point of fascism. And people took it for truth and consensus. But even then, the big city newspapers broke along party lines. The Chicago Tribune was the Republican paper and the American leaned left, while the Sun Times was the tabloid for the hoi polloi.
And at least since JFK, the media have smothered stories that reflected poorly on their preferred narratives. It's just that now, there are so many alternative sources available to anyone with a few clicks, that the Potmekin nature of those narratives is becoming widely known.
Reality isn't what it used to be.
if what this guy says is true then is trump really the one playing the media, or is he getting played by the media who seem to be profiting nicely from his presidency.
So this pipsqueak's eight-minute long reel boils down to the two or so quotes at the beginning, right?
Network media follows ratings? You don't say. You conservatives are really onto something.
Next up, maybe you'll land the inside scoop on how politicians do the will of their donors.
Nah.
the media loves trump.
Snark: "media reports on Russia Investigation not fake news"
It's all fruit from the poisoned tree, snark. The deep state sources that leaked "Russia Collusion" are the same ones feeding intelligence agency innuendo to the investigations.
Democrats and Republicans alike should be concerned if FBI, NSA, CIA are running an operation to unseat the President of the United States. Regardless of which party he is in.
We already have evidence that Obama weaponized IRS and NSA against his domedtic political opponents.
Looks like we need a major house cleaning. These agencies are supposed to be protecting the Rule of Law and shielding American interests overseas. They are NOT supposed to play Kingmaker. Heads need to roll and agencies need to be cleaned up top to bottom.
Vicari, then why do they keep taking what they think will be kill shots at him? You think they're pulling their punches? You think they're trying to keep him around?
if what this man says is true, it's because they're making a lot of money.
"The media loves Trump"
Sure. That's why everyone at CNN Headquarters is on suicide watch tonight as they pull an all-nighter with Public Relations and Damage Control teams.
I wonder what standard PR expert advice is for this kind of thing? Fire everyone even remotely associated with the fuck up?
"rubs off on Fox News"
Everyone I know claims FOX has sold out. The owner's children are trying to push it left to join the other 24 networks that provide a leftist view.
Screw FOX.
"should be fired for that"
They aren't being fired for lying. They are being fired for getting caught lying.
Ask yourself, why any of these "experts" in the MSM still have jobs, considering how poorly they performed last election. Their analysis was dead wrong. Their polling was dead wrong. They were even predicting a Hillary landslide.
Worse, the MSM created all these false narratives that blinded their own side. So blinded that Democrats were shell-shocked for months after the election.
These guys are supposed to be information brokers. But if you found out your stock broker lied to you about Enron, would you still use him? So why would anyone continue to use information brokers like the NYTs, WaPo, CNN or MSNBC? You can get that level of expertise over at HuffPo for free.
So why do they still have jobs? Because their job was to promote Hillary and damage Trump, even at the expense of their news organization's reputation. And they did their job.
vicari valdez said...
the media loves trump.
Sure, vv. Just like they loved Dubya. And Reagan.
I've been overwhelmed by the amount of love the media lavish on GOP politicians.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा