The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news

[Sneezeburger]

Is there any evidence that God doesn't exist? Asking proof of a negative isn't a reasonable expectation.

No, you're saying that this is evidence of collusion with a particular candidate. It's not collusion, or at least not to the extent you imply, if it happens with every candidate. You're saying something does exist, namely collusion. But if you only present half of the equation, you haven't proved anything.

Also, buzz off with the God example. The burden of proof is on the person alleging something does exist. It's not someone else's responsibility to disprove the thing for which you have no proof.

[Endus]

Mark Leibovich, a writer for the New York Times, was discussing an article he was going to run about Hillary Clinton with Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's communications director.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/m...nton.html?_r=1

It followed Jennifer Palmieri requests. While the "her" that Jennifer needed to talk to before she replied back to Mark wasn't named, its not outlandish to imagine that the "her" was Hillary.

It's been standard journalistic practice for at least the last half-century or so to allow subjects who give interviews some editorial control over the resulting story, since it isn't a story that's meant as a "sting" in the first place. You grant them that editorial control so that they will give you the interview, because they want to ensure you don't take anything in the wrong context.

Seeing that as somehow misleading or dishonest on anybody's part is completely ridiculous.

Not the point of contention. Mass media colluding with a presidential candidate during an election is the definition of propaganda.

1> Only if you're using the term so broadly that it refers to literally any information that supports any political viewpoint whatsoever; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda
2> There was no "collusion". You're making that shit up out of nothing, and it's slanderous. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

[announced]

Watergate took two years.

guess we'll see what happens in 2 years then, so far the FBI hasn't shown anything concrete going on 7 months now.

[Taneras]

No, you're saying that this is evidence of collusion with a particular candidate. It's not collusion, or at least not to the extent you imply, if it happens with every candidate.

True. I think The New York Time's coverage of Trump is evidence in and of itself that Trump wasn't being given the same sort of edit/veto power over the stories they ran about him.

Also, buzz off with the God example. The burden of proof is on the person alleging he does exist. It's not someone else's responsibility to disprove the thing for which you have no proof.

I wasn't asking you to prove or disprove anything. I only pointed out the high bar you've set. No, I don't have access to all of the electronic or verbal communications between any writer at the New York Times and Trump himself or anyone associated with Trump to see if he's been contacted.

I guess that solves the problem, no collusion has been proven.

/sarcasm.

[Sneezeburger]

True. I think The New York Time's coverage of Trump is evidence in and of itself that Trump wasn't being given the same sort of edit/veto power over the stories they ran about him.



I wasn't asking you to prove or disprove anything. I only pointed out the high bar you've set. No, I don't have access to all of the electronic or verbal communications between any writer at the New York Times and Trump himself or anyone associated with Trump to see if he's been contacted.

I guess that solves the problem, no collusion has been proven.

/sarcasm.

I'm not expecting you personally to demonstrate it. But there are plenty of news organizations on the right with the resources to do so, and to my knowledge this has not occurred. Yes, there is a high bar to prove that a campaign and a major news organization conspired to give a particular candidate an advantage at the expense of every other candidate. And there should be. It's irresponsible to just level these accusations willy nilly. And, before you say it, I do not think it has been proven that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. There are many elements pointing to that conclusion, but, as far as I know, no smoking gun.

But that's how the burden of proof works. The person alleging something has to be the one to prove it. And simply posting a few lines from an email conversation without all those other elements does not prove collusion or conspiracy or however you choose to categorize it. Finally, lest we forget, these were hacked emails from ONE campaign and ONE campaign only. If we had full access to all the emails from all the presidential campaigns, we might very well see the same sort of alleged shenanigans going on with other candidates.

[HumbleDuck]

Congratulations, you took generalisations to a whole new level.

[Garnier Fructis]

What's your interpretation of this?

My response is basically what Sneezeburger wrote. It's the unbridled arrogance of thinking you can deduce what's going on without context that has left the email crowd continuously embarrassed.

You'd have thought these people would have learned the dangers of assuming without context from climategate.

Here's context from the guy in your email:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/m...racy.html?_r=0

Short story: They were discussing what the source of an interview wanted to be on or off the record. The ideas and rules of 'on the record' and 'off the record' have been standard in journalism for decades. In context, it's much ado about nothing.

Just like all the other email shit I've ever seen. Context, people. Context is supreme.

[Taneras]

It's been standard journalistic practice for at least the last half-century or so to allow subjects who give interviews some editorial control over the resulting story, since it isn't a story that's meant as a "sting" in the first place. You grant them that editorial control so that they will give you the interview, because they want to ensure you don't take anything in the wrong context.

Seeing that as somehow misleading or dishonest on anybody's part is completely ridiculous.

The emails sent back and forth aren't clarifying context.

1> Only if you're using the term so broadly that it refers to literally any information that supports any political viewpoint whatsoever; http://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda
2> There was no "collusion". You're making that shit up out of nothing, and it's slanderous. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion

1.) "Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

It's misleading because there's no mention that Hillary or her campaign had edit/veto power over this article. Anyone reading this article would reasonably assume that its a reflection of Mark Leibovich's thoughts on Hillary Clinton and not Mark's thoughts filtered by the Hillary Campaign on Hillary Clinton.

2.) The agreement between Mark and Hillary's campaign was a "secret agreement". I'm not suggesting that any laws were broken.

[Garnier Fructis]

2.) The agreement between Mark and Hillary's campaign was a "secret agreement". I'm not suggesting that any laws were broken.

Nor any standard practice; see my reply above.

[Endus]

The emails sent back and forth aren't clarifying context.

They also aren't anything like how you're portraying them to be. There's no evidence whatsoever of any sort of "collusion" at all.

1.) "Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Like I said; you're using it so broadly (because you're having to exclude the "especially of a biased or misleading nature" part), that it's functionally useless.

Because there was no "bias" or "misleading" that you've revealed, here.

It's misleading because there's no mention that Hillary or her campaign had edit/veto power over this article. Anyone reading this article would reasonably assume that its a reflection of Mark Leibovich's thoughts on Hillary Clinton and not Mark's thoughts filtered by the Hillary Campaign on Hillary Clinton.

2.) The agreement between Mark and Hillary's campaign was a "secret agreement". I'm not suggesting that any laws were broken.

Given that such agreements are standard practice and there's no onus of expectation that they be revealed, because they're standard practice, this is you inserting your bias into things, and attempting to misrepresent what actually occurred.

It isn't a "secret agreement" just because you didn't know about it. And the article WAS a reflection of Mark Leibovich's thoughts. You've provided nothing that suggests otherwise.

See Garnier Fructis's post above. We don't have to worry about what you are making up in your own personal Imagination Land, we can just have Mark Leibovich explain to us what was going on there. Where he confirms that your fantastical interpretation is flat-out wrong. You're having to manufacture motives and facts that don't exist to try and shore up your fantasy of media bias, when the simple truth is that no such bias was demonstrated, and you just don't want to let it go.

[Taneras]

Short story: They were discussing what the source of an interview wanted to be on or off the record. The ideas and rules of 'on the record' and 'off the record' have been standard in journalism for decades. In context, it's much ado about nothing.

Jennifer Palmieri said "Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.". Why would Mark Leibovich want the Hillary Campaign to pick what material to include from an "off the record" interview? You'd think that'd be a demand the Hillary Campaign would be making, not something Mark would be pushing. Not unless Mark's a Hillary fan and didn't want to put out something that'd hurt her chances at getting elected ... you know, stuff real journalists are concerned with.

[Sneezeburger]

Here's context from the guy in your email:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/m...racy.html?_r=0

Short story: They were discussing what the source of an interview wanted to be on or off the record. The ideas and rules of 'on the record' and 'off the record' have been standard in journalism for decades. In context, it's much ado about nothing.

Just like all the other email shit I've ever seen. Context, people. Context is supreme.

Welp. As expected, much less serious when placed in its proper context. Now, is this 100% objective indisputable fact, given that the article is written by the same person who composed half of the emails in question? No. But it's worth a heck of a lot more than the unfounded speculation her opponents are bringing.

What he describes is something which, according the author, has occurred countless times with countless candidates. The difference between Clinton and the other candidates is that Clinton is the only one who had her campaign emails compromised by hackers and, yes, we saw how the sausage was made and it wasn't always pretty. But to simply assume that Clinton was the only person engaging in these practices (or worse) is naive, and that there was some media cabal which existed solely for her benefit, is just absurd.

[Endus]

Jennifer Palmieri said "Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.". Why would Mark Leibovich want the Hillary Campaign to pick what material to include from an "off the record" interview?

Because it was off the record. Do you not understand what the term means?

Journalists can't use off-the-record material. Because it was told to them in confidence. Wanting to use some of that material means that material has to go on the record, and that requires permission.

Journalistic ethics matter, even if you think they don't.

[May90]

I have some ocreanfront property I'd like to sell you in South Dakota Interested?

Sure, deal! I've always wanted to try swimming in an ocean of oil.

[Sneezeburger]

Jennifer Palmieri said "Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.". Why would Mark Leibovich want the Hillary Campaign to pick what material to include from an "off the record" interview? You'd think that'd be a demand the Hillary Campaign would be making, not something Mark would be pushing. Not unless Mark's a Hillary fan and didn't want to put out something that'd hurt her chances at getting elected ... you know, stuff real journalists are concerned with.

"i wanted the option to use all -- and you could veto what you didn't want.
That's why i selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd
really love to use the other things i sent, too. They were all on point.
Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you you think you can check?"

"I wanted the option to use all" does not sound like "please pick what I can use." It sounds like this was a misunderstanding on the part of Ms. Palmieri, rather than a request of the journalist. In any case, as noted by the article, it was an off-the record interview, so he couldn't just print whatever he wanted and had to obtain permission in order to do so. See the section regarding "veto power" following an off-the record interview.

[Deleted]

We went through 8 years of it from the right, prepare yourself for 4-8 years of it from the left.

Thing is left loves to claim how "better" it is compared to right. If they are better then why do they act the same way? If they do effectively the same thing but with different semantics then left is essentially right, except it calls itself left.

[Sneezeburger]

Because it was off the record. Do you not understand what the term means?

Journalists can't use off-the-record material. Because it was told to them in confidence. Wanting to use some of that material means that material has to go on the record, and that requires permission.

Journalistic ethics matter, even if you think they don't.

Exactly. And maybe he's legally permitted to print it, but if he did, good luck getting anyone to talk to him ever again. See the video below for an illustration of what that would be like.

[Taneras]

They also aren't anything like how you're portraying them to be. There's no evidence whatsoever of any sort of "collusion" at all.

That's what I'm arguing, though. You're the one that brought up context. If you don't want to defend the context angle anymore because you see that its not applicable that's fine.

Like I said; you're using it so broadly (because you're having to exclude the "especially of a biased or misleading nature" part), that it's functionally useless.

Because there was no "bias" or "misleading" that you've revealed, here.

It was filtered through Hillary Clinton Campaign, unless you're going to argue that they're not biased towards her then its there by default once you ask them to edit/veto articles, paragraphs, or sentences.

Given that such agreements are standard practice and there's no onus of expectation that they be revealed, because they're standard practice, this is you inserting your bias into things, and attempting to misrepresent what actually occurred.

Odd that the same standards weren't given to Rowanne Brewer Lane when she was interviewed about Trump. She wasn't happy about the quotes they took from her in this article and how they placed a negative spin on them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...ump-women.html

It's almost as if this isn't an honest news publication...

And the article WAS a reflection of Mark Leibovich's thoughts. You've provided nothing that suggests otherwise.

My description of "Mark's thoughts filtered by the Hillary Campaign on Hillary Clinton." is more accurate. And the added clarity is the point.

[jdbond592]

I thought all Trump news on 'MSM" was fake? What's going on here?

[May90]

Thing is left loves to claim how "better" it is compared to right. If they are better then why do they act the same way? If they do effectively the same thing but with different semantics then left is essentially right, except it calls itself left.

Both "the left" and "the right" are humans. Both tend to claim that they are better than the other, and both have a lot of bad fruits among them.

When Obama was elected in 2008, there was, if I remember right, a 2 million march on Washington, with people carrying boards like "COMMUNISM SHALL NOT PASS", and nobody was really surprised. The point is, no one should be surprised now either at people overreacting.