Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[TZucchini]

Relevant video about yesterday's happenings with Trump on BBC with Glenn Greenwald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fERGqflABPw

It's really funny to hear someone say that, as a journalist, they rely on facts and evidence. Then to turn around and say the CIA is basically a shill for Hillary.

That's absolutely absurd.

[LaserSharkDFB]

The label of the clearance doesn't' matter. I'm sorry if I conflated the terms from my only personal experience with security clearance, with those that apply to journalists. However, the fact remains, that people who do have this clearance are reporting that, while the totality of the full report is classified, it did have a disinformation header. CNN knew that, yet they ran the story about the shorter document for 24 hours, and treated it like breaking news, even though it was months old. This whole deal is factually worse than what Dan Rather did to Bush. Dan Rather at least had a fresh story, even though it was obviously fake news.

True or false: Did Obama and Trump get briefed on the two-page memo?
True or false: Did that briefing happen last week, not six months ago?
True or false: Did CNN report on the briefing, rather than the six-month-old document?

I'm not finding anything online about the clearance of the briefing memo, but even so, can you prove that CNN (A) had clearance to read it, and (B) it was made available to them?

[cubby]

The description in that video

"CIA bias against Trump"

Is this the level Trumpsters have sunk to? Trump insults the CIA for months on end, and continues to do do (including lying about the phone call he had with Clapper last night by misrepresenting what Clapper actually said), and the CIA has done literally nothing in response, but the CIA is apparently not "out to get" Trump?

Seriously, what fucking reality to Trump supporters live in that they buy all this painfully obvious bullshit?

I guess Trump and the GOP's ongoing smear campaign to undermine credibility and trust of the US intelligence community in order to defend Russia and Trump is quite successful.

I agree with you.

Question though - this doesn't seem to be the GOP's campaign more than it is Trump's. The GOP is already pissed at Trump's attitude towards Russia (Rubio). Attacking the intelligence organizations isn't going to win him any friends in neo-con land.

This might be the path the GOP could take for ousting Trump and getting pretty-boy Pence in there.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really funny to hear someone say that, as a journalist, they rely on facts and evidence. Then to turn around and say the CIA is basically a shill for Hillary.

That's absolutely absurd.

It's Trumpland - people are ignoring logic, reality, facts, and critical thinking to follow their new God-King. And this isn't even a joke anymore - they are actually doing it.

[downnola]

It's really funny to hear someone say that, as a journalist, they rely on facts and evidence. Then to turn around and say the CIA is basically a shill for Hillary.

That's absolutely absurd.

Calling Glenn Greenwald a journalist is an insult to the title.

[Tijuana]

Calling Glenn Greenwald a journalist is an insult to the title.

The title of journalist is an insult to anyone with a shred of morality.

[May90]

I told you, guys, told you, back in 2008, that you should have voted for McCain... All this mess could be avoided now. :/

[Edge-]

The title of journalist is an insult to anyone with a shred of morality.

If you want to pretend that journalists have not been an important and integral part of modern society for well over a century, sure, I guess. Onwards and upwards with the, "facts be damn, I decide what are and aren't facts all on my own!" train.

[jackofwind]

The title of journalist is an insult to anyone with a shred of morality.

Well I don't know about all journalists, unless war correspondents don't refer to themselves as journalists because their field is more specialised.

Those people have serious stones and deserve respect.

[Tijuana]

True or false: Did Obama and Trump get briefed on the two-page memo?
True or false: Did that briefing happen last week, not six months ago?
True or false: Did CNN report on the briefing, rather than the six-month-old document?

I'm not finding anything online about the clearance of the briefing memo, but even so, can you prove that CNN (A) had clearance to read it, and (B) it was made available to them?

Instead of parsing words and playing games, why not tell me what you think about this whole story? I already stated previously, I think even to you personally, that CNN is playing a game of "we are only reporting on the story, not the document". You don't have to accept that as fact. Just tell me what you think about it personally. The point of forums is not to fact check and link battle; the point is to discuss.

[Tijuana]

If you want to pretend that journalists have not been an important and integral part of modern society for well over a century, sure, I guess. Onwards and upwards with the, "facts be damn, I decide what are and aren't facts all on my own!" train.

I would say their role is even more important than what you state. But, any credibility in the industry that was left, ceased to exist somewhere around the Clinton administration. There are still some good guys left, working in the industry, but on the whole, there is no credible media company left.

But, do you not see the issue of what you are saying? We DO NEED to be able to trust the media. If we cant' trust them, how on earth can we ever know the truth? How can we trust them to give us the truth, when they so often put their personal politics above their personal credibility?

- - - Updated - - -

Well I don't know about all journalists, unless war correspondents don't refer to themselves as journalists because their field is more specialised.

Those people have serious stones and deserve respect.

Bravery =/= morality. A person can be both brave, yet also have no morality or credibility, like Brian Williams, for example.

[Martinezzz]

CNN= fake news

[LaserSharkDFB]

Instead of parsing words and playing games, why not tell me what you think about this whole story? I already stated previously, I think even to you personally, that CNN is playing a game of "we are only reporting on the story, not the document". You don't have to accept that as fact. Just tell me what you think about it personally. The point of forums is not to fact check and link battle; the point is to discuss.

Oh, so you get to dodge my questions but I have to answer? Fine. I'm used to that from people like you.

CNN did nothing wrong.

That's pretty much it. My goal here is to keep you and those like you from conflating two different things. CNN's 'story' was about the briefing given to Trump and Obama, but you've been attacking them as if their story was the contents of the document. Why shouldn't CNN report that those two were briefed on an issue of national security? You keep saying they should have waited to verify the story, but the story they were actually reporting on was not in question by anyone.

And sez you. When one side keeps lying, fact checking and link wars are vital to make sure a discussion stays honest.

[NYC17]

Instead of parsing words and playing games, why not tell me what you think about this whole story? I already stated previously, I think even to you personally, that CNN is playing a game of "we are only reporting on the story, not the document". You don't have to accept that as fact. Just tell me what you think about it personally. The point of forums is not to fact check and link battle; the point is to discuss.

The discussion requires a basic understanding of facts.

[Tijuana]

Oh, so you get to dodge my questions but I have to answer? Fine. I'm used to that from people like you.

CNN did nothing wrong.

That's pretty much it. My goal here is to keep you and those like you from conflating two different things. CNN's 'story' was about the briefing given to Trump and Obama, but you've been attacking them as if their story was the contents of the document. Why shouldn't CNN report that those two were briefed on an issue of national security? You keep saying they should have waited to verify the story, but the story they were actually reporting on was not in question by anyone.

I did dodge your question, sorry. I just felt like a dog chasing it's tail with your "fact check" campaign. I legitimately care more about your opinion, than what you think the facts are or are not. I'm not conceding; I'm just moving on.

I disagree with your assessment, however. I think they were very coy about how they reported but didn't report but did report. I think what they did was very plain, to my eyes. Some others disagree but, I question their reasoning for disagreement. I think they just want the story to be true, and don't want to give up hope on it.

Also, do you even know it when you do that? When you say, "people like me", do you even understand that insulting people doesn't win any arguments?

- - - Updated - - -

The discussion requires a basic understanding of facts.

No it doesn't. The purpose of the forum is discussion, not fact checking. All of the interesting posts are opinions. You can argue nuance but, you won't ever get anywhere, as it just devolves in to 100 factual disagreements that are essentially pointless to the overall topic. Parsing words isn't actually that intellectually stimulating.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I did dodge your question, sorry. I just felt like a dog chasing it's tail with your "fact check" campaign. I legitimately care more about your opinion, than what you think the facts are or are not. I'm not conceding; I'm just moving on.

I disagree with your assessment, however. I think they were very coy about how they reported but didn't report but did report. I think what they did was very plain, to my eyes. Some others disagree but, I question their reasoning for disagreement. I think they just want the story to be true, and don't want to give up hope on it.

In other words you've let your bias take over your perception of facts, and have assumed things they haven't actually done. Personally, I value fact over opinion, and it's a fact that you've been misrepresenting what CNN did this entire conversation.

And what insult have I offered, specifically? Liars are liars, and I will not apologize for pointing that out. If you want me to stop calling you a liar, then you should stop lying. Or you could prove that I'm wrong, in which case I will apologize, guaranteed. Unlike you, I am capable of that feat.

[Tijuana]

In other words you've let your bias take over your perception of facts, and have assumed things they haven't actually done. Personally, I value fact over opinion, and it's a fact that you've been misrepresenting what CNN did this entire conversation.

And what insult have I offered, specifically? Liars are liars, and I will not apologize for pointing that out. If you want me to stop calling you a liar, then you should stop lying.

I mean, we are just in disagreement about what happened. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't an interesting discussion to be had about responsible journalism, etc. It's a shame you only want to argue and fight, instead of debate and discuss. /shrug

[NYC17]

I did dodge your question, sorry. I just felt like a dog chasing it's tail with your "fact check" campaign. I legitimately care more about your opinion, than what you think the facts are or are not. I'm not conceding; I'm just moving on.

I disagree with your assessment, however. I think they were very coy about how they reported but didn't report but did report. I think what they did was very plain, to my eyes. Some others disagree but, I question their reasoning for disagreement. I think they just want the story to be true, and don't want to give up hope on it.

Also, do you even know it when you do that? When you say, "people like me", do you even understand that insulting people doesn't win any arguments?

- - - Updated - - -



No it doesn't. The purpose of the forum is discussion, not fact checking. All of the interesting posts are opinions. You can argue nuance but, you won't ever get anywhere, as it just devolves in to 100 factual disagreements that are essentially pointless to the overall topic. Parsing words isn't actually that intellectually stimulating.

The discussion is about what is factual versus what isn't. You're actively asking to leave fact out of the discussion.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I mean, we are just in disagreement about what happened. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't an interesting discussion to be had about responsible journalism, etc. It's a shame you only want to argue and fight, instead of debate and discuss. /shrug

It's impossible to discuss anything when one side is using facts and the other side is using misinformation. "The sky is green!" "No, the sky is blue." "That's just your opinion."

[downnola]

The title of journalist is an insult to anyone with a shred of morality.

Telling people what they don't want to hear is part of the job. Based on your comment it would appear some of them are effective.

[Tijuana]

The discussion is about what is factual versus what isn't. You're actively asking to leave fact out of the discussion.

I'm actively realizing we will never agree on the facts, so it's pointless to fight over them. Yet, the topic could be quite interesting, if anyone actually wanted to discuss ethics in journalism. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Telling people what they don't want to hear is part of the job. Based on your comment it would appear some of them are effective.

Actually, no. That has nothing to do with the job. The job is to report facts. The job is to get to the bottom of things, and report back the factual findings. The job is not to smear people for political "points". Much of the journalism world is up in arms over Buzzfeed. Less so about CNN, to be fair. I think ethics in journalism are at an all time low, and the topic is interesting to discuss, in light of this current even story. Others disagree, however, and would like to only defend CNN/Buzzfeed. That is a shame.