Is Calling CNN 'Fake News' an assault on Freedom of the Press?

[Endus]

So the fact that Lanny Davis went on CNN and said live on air that he was given this story by an 'anonymous source', which was discovered to be HIM, doesnt bother you? then all of sudden, when it got found out CNN said they had other 'anonymous sources' doesnt make you question it? Well, then youre just as bad as the other one. You want to believe, so go ahead. What I say here isnt going to convince you.

What you're saying here isn't going to convince anyone, because you're making up imaginary nonsense and lying about the facts. You're literally arguing a conspiracy theory, and wondering why no one will just blindly believe you, when you can't even back your own claims up.

[Edge-]

So the fact that Lanny Davis went on CNN and said live on air that he was given this story by an 'anonymous source', which was discovered to be HIM, doesnt bother you?

Anonymous sources rarely identify themselves, so even if an anonymous source is being interviewed on TV (not as a source), they're rarely ever going to admit to being an anonymous source. He denied being a source, then when he retracted his story he admitted he was the source. This is pretty straightforward stuff. Occasionally, sources get cold feet.

then all of sudden, when it got found out CNN said they had other 'anonymous sources' doesnt make you question it?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/polit...dge/index.html

That's the article. It was last updated July 27 and it includes mentions of multiple sources in the opening paragraph.

Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, claims that then-candidate Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton, sources with knowledge tell CNN. Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller, the sources said.

Davis backed away from his story in August from the look of things, so unless CNN can time travel the timeline you present is not accurate.

[zenkai]

Youre a lost cause my man, not going to waste anymore time with you. Youre like the MSM news equivalent of a militant vegan.

- - - Updated - - -



Yea of course they are.

Welcome to MMOGOT, where facts don't matter but echo chambers do.

[Edge-]

Welcome to MMOGOT, where facts don't matter but echo chambers do.

See my post above for a timeline with facts. CNN had multiple sources, if their other sources remain confident in their stories a single source pulling out doesn't warrant a retraction.

[Endus]

So the notion CNN is being dishonest about their sources, or any additional “sources” are untrustworthy isn’t a possibility? You’re able to assume malice and deceit from other outlets, but not from CNN?

It's a possibility, but so is the idea that I have a unicorn that grants wishes in my backyard.

With both, nobody's gonna believe you unless you can produce actual evidence of said dishonesty, or said unicorn.

Without such evidence, they're both equally imaginary and people who profess a belief in either are equally ridiculous.

[Edge-]

So the notion CNN is being dishonest about their sources, or any additional “sources” are untrustworthy isn’t a possibility? You’re able to assume malice and deceit from other outlets, but not from CNN?

It is, I've never said otherwise so I'm not sure why you would think that. I'm simply correcting someone who has an incorrect timeline with actual facts. The facts are that CNN wrote that they had multiple sources for the story, and Davis backing out a month after the story broke doesn't mean their only source is gone or that they "made up" additional sources after the fact.

And kudos for caring about timelines and accusations. I hope you apply that standard the next time someone inaccurately parrots that Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary and they did so on his behalf. Unless you think time travel is possible.

If you were correct, I'd agree. But timelines disagree -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.954fe0a7f8a1

July 27, 2016. At a news conference, Trump dismisses the idea that Russia is behind the hacking — and makes a request.

“If it is Russia — which it’s probably not, nobody knows who it is — but if it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything,” he said. “But it would be interesting to see — I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [from Clinton’s private server]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next.”

Trump’s press conference began in the morning in Florida, late afternoon in Russia. The same day, the GRU hackers allegedly try to access Clinton’s personal email server in addition to targeting 76 more email addresses within the campaign. The indictment doesn’t mention any other attempt to access the server

That's not to say there weren't attempts before, the timeline clearly lays out that Russian hackers were engaged in attempts to access files well before that. But it's a fact that Trump "asked" Russians to hack Hillary's email, and that same day GRU hackers allegedly tried to hack Hillary's personal email server and campaign emails.

[Edge-]

We know when the DNC and Podesta were hacked, and those dates precede Trump asking for the 30k emails.

Which I acknowledged in my post, if you read it. But I also pointed out that there was a clear response to his request, or at least extremely coincidental timing, in that the GRU stepped up efforts to directly access her server and her campaigns emails shortly after he asked.

Those emails have never surfaced and the emails released by Russia were not from Clinton’s server and were accessed prior to Trump’s statement (something I think was in jest and not an actual plea for aide).

I'm aware of this. They didn't access her server that we're aware of. And I've never argued otherwise. There was an attempt, whether it was successful or not we don't know.

Ergo, the notion Trump in anyway influenced or enticed Russian hacking of Democratic emails is false.

It's not proven, you're correct again! But we're not talking about guilt here, we're talking about timelines. And the timelines are as I said, and they do not support your version of events.

[Cthulhu 2020]

They do that all the damn time, and pretty much all of them lie through their teeth to start their wars. I'm not gonna just pick ONE when this is a characteristic of the office.

- - - Updated - - -



I am not demonizing anyone, nor do I like them. They should continue to do their job, and I should also be able to continue to trash them if I feel like it for what they do. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, who cares, all trash. As you can see, I am not discriminating.

You're not discriminating, but you are generalizing. Those of us with a decent IQ can pick out the facts of a story from the political commentary. People who completely remove themselves from all news are just as bad as those who immerse themselves in the political bias. Those who get their news from 4chan, reddit, facebook, or any other social media are basically just people immersing themselves in a bias as well. They've already chosen a given platform that will have a political leaning, and the people on those social media platforms will have filtered out all news that's "unsavory" to their tastes.

None of those news institutions are straight up trash. Notice how many times those news sites just post a video of something Trump says, and the hardcore Trumpers will get themselves into an enraged frenzy over it? "Oh no, our glorious leader has been exposed for the terrible person he is by the news organizations, burn them to the ground!"

Cewrtain op-ed reporters are less than savory for their pieces that may as well be propaganda (both on CNN and Fox) but that's exactly why we don't read the op-eds unless they're done by someone who's already proven themselves a competent journalist.

[Yuujin]

People have been calling Fox News a right-wing propaganda machine for ages. It's not an assault on the freedom of press unless someone starts actively trying to limit their ability to share information or opinions or censor them.

[Theodarzna]

Your argument is basically this Trump can say whatever he wants as long as he doesn't break the law implicitly. That is pure semantics you are narrowing the definition of attacking freedom of the press to violations.

My argument is that not being Jim Accosta's friend is not a fundamental threat to the First Amendment and unless he actually does something, being unfriendly isn't some violation of the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't seriously view the world as this black and white, do you? Enemy or friend, and nothing in between?

No, but I don't see why Trump or anyone has to hold these specific institutions or specific reporters in high esteem or with reverence for the First Amendment to hold stable.

[Draco-Onis]

My argument is that not being Jim Accosta's friend is not a fundamental threat to the First Amendment and unless he actually does something, being unfriendly isn't some violation of the constitution.

You literally just made my point for me as long as Trump doesn't violate the constitution whatever he says and does is fine by you.

[Theodarzna]

Not calling them "enemy of the people" instantly means they are "friends of the people"? That's some mental gymnastics there.

Perhaps just calling them out on their bullshit and not labeling them as the enemy, so that the more deranged of the voter base doesn't take it as an excuse to physically assault them... how about that?

If someone acts like your enemy, you should be able to call them on that.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally just made my point for me as long as Trump doesn't violate the constitution whatever he says and does is fine by you.

Yeah, duh, that is the point of this thread. That not being nice to CNN isn't a constitutional crisis. Nice reading comprehension.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not going to get constructive feedback from people who want to only hear what they listen too in their echo chamber.

I am aware that anything short of Skroe-tier circlejerking about the Orange-Man is pretty much never going to lead to the intelligent dialog one might imagine.

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah, duh, that is the point of this thread. That not being nice to CNN isn't a constitutional crisis. Nice reading comprehension.

And the fact that you don't get that is wrong is the point, I bet if some evil liberal was doing what Trump is doing to right wing media you would be lighting your hair on fire.

[Theodarzna]

And the fact that you don't get that is wrong is the point, I bet if some evil liberal was doing what Trump is doing to right wing media you would be lighting your hair on fire.

Okay, let's say someone says something I don't like, then it is something I don't like. I don't call it a constitutional crisis.

By the way, a nice self-own there. You acknowledge you are setting your hair on fire and screaming over partisan nonsense that doesn't really matter.

[Kiri]

Okay, let's say someone says something I don't like, then it is something I don't like. I don't call it a constitutional crisis.

By the way, a nice self-own there. You acknowledge you are setting your hair on fire and screaming over partisan nonsense that doesn't really matter.

This is not about saying you don't like something. It is fine when the President says that he does not like the media. It is fine if he 'is not friends' with Jim Acosta or whatever. But the President of the United States publicly accusing the media as "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE" is something else entirely. It carries different weight. It can lead to harassment, violence, people losing their jobs. It can lead to a constitutional crisis, if it continues to escalate.

[Draco-Onis]

Okay, let's say someone says something I don't like, then it is something I don't like. I don't call it a constitutional crisis.

By the way, a nice self-own there. You acknowledge you are setting your hair on fire and screaming over partisan nonsense that doesn't really matter.

I am just referring to you since your hair is on fire every week about the evils of liberalism but this isn't about liking the press. It's funny you act as if Trump is the first and only president in United States history that has not liked the press.

[Theodarzna]

This is not about saying you don't like something. It is fine when the President says that he does not like the media. It is fine if he 'is not friends' with Jim Acosta or whatever. But the President of the United States publicly accusing the media as "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE" is something else entirely. It carries different weight. It can lead to harassment, violence, people losing their jobs. It can lead to a constitutional crisis, if it continues to escalate.

It is nothing else entirely as it is just words. Nothing has come of it, and people hated the news media outlets we have today long before Trump. It wasn't as if people thought highly of reporters and then Trump came and now nobody respects them.

- - - Updated - - -

I am just referring to you since your hair is on fire every week about the evils of liberalism but this isn't about liking the press. It's funny you act as if Trump is the first and only president in United States history that has not liked the press.

So you don't have a point but you are desperate for some kinda Gotcha here and are going to keep reaching and moving this goalpost until you get it? Is saving face in front of MMO-OC posters that critical?

[Draco-Onis]

So you don't have a point but you are desperate for some kinda Gotcha here and are going to keep reaching and moving this goalpost until you get it? Is saving face in front of MMO-OC posters that critical?

You are acting purposely thick headed, I know you understand that there is something very wrong and different about how Trump handles the press. But your point is loud and clear words have no meanings.

[Edge-]

It is nothing else entirely as it is just words. Nothing has come of it, and people hated the news media outlets we have today long before Trump. It wasn't as if people thought highly of reporters and then Trump came and now nobody respects them.

See, this is normalizing abnormal behavior.

Was there a healthy level of skepticism pre-Trump? Sure!
Has Trump repeatedly and openly attacked the free press? Yep.
Has he incited violence against them, which has led to his supporters openly threatening to harm/kill them and at times taking action? Yep.
Is undermining a free press and whipping people up against the very notion of a free press part of the petty authoritarians handbook? Yep.
Were presidents critical of press prior to Trump? Yep.
Did presidents openly attack the press prior to Trump (at least in recent history)? Nope.

This is textbook normalization of abnormal behavior that shouldn't be accepted or tolerated.

[Theodarzna]

You are acting purposely thick headed, I know you understand that there is something very wrong and different about how Trump handles the press. But your point is loud and clear words have no meanings.

No, there really isn't unless you are a partisan hack lacking anything to safely bitch about that is sincere and meaningful.