Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
131–140 of 227 posts
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many Obama campaign managers did they indict? How many Obama National Security Advisors did they indict and force to resign over Russian ties? How many times did Obama deny that the Russians attacked American interests during an election only to be rebut by the FBI with a string of foreign indictments?
Well, the Obama administration were the ones who ignored the Russia meddling. They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. They also ignored violations of the nuclear treaty, various previous hacking attempts, cancelled…
> They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election.
Except the reporting was clear about the source since June. The President wanted to publicize it earlier to but McConell refused to sign a bipartisan condemnation. Even then the intelligence community was unequivocal.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-ru...
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is covering one of the biggest scandals in modern American politics malpractice? Obama never had anything similar in scope over 8 years.
Is it a scandal if it isn't true? And you're right, Obama never had anything in this scope, it's worse, because people died from things he perpetuated. 1) Fast and Furious: Continued program that caused a border agent to be murdered with one of the many guns the US sold to the cartels. 2) Benghazi: We all know this disaster that killed 4 Americans. Severely understaffed embassy that should have never even been there.…
All of those were less consequential (and with half of those unfounded) and didn't warrant a SCO investigation.
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#134My wife and I are liberal, but I have been complaining to her for a half a year that it seemed like the news media was making a lot of opinionated or unsubstantiated statements as if they were 100% true (infinitely true!).
I think you know what I mean, when a news hour host makes statements in a tone of voice that implies there is no doubt about something.
For me, the main theme of this article was “None of this has been walked back.” - very few news outlets have admitted really sloppy reporting.
And, this all unfortunately plays into Trumps hands and increases his odds of winning in 2020.
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#135Although I agree with many of the points here, unfortunately the piece itself has made the same mistake as the media it criticises: it's jumping to conclusions a little prematurely. Why read so much into the lack of indictments when Mueller's team have agreed to the standard that they cannot indict a sitting president? [1] Let's just wait and see -- I'm fed of speculation at this point. [1] https://www.washingtonpost…
It's a little worse than jumping in prematurely.
The article is trying to persuade us the press discredits itself when it correctly reports 37 indictments, several convictions, Russian meetings with Don jr. and a mind-boggling array of lies. It criticizes an accurately researched nyt list of Trump associates connected with Russians implying it has been refuted by the Mueller report which the author has not even seen.
Consider what the author is suggesting: these things should not be reported.
It intentionally blurs opinion pieces with factual reporting, and even then heavily paraphrases. It attributes words of others to papers that did not publish them. It implies someone's votive candles somehow reflects on the press.
All hinged on the the fact that there are no recommended indictments (beyond the dozens already being pursued). Additional indictments that would have to be for the theoretically unindictable offense of collusion.
It's not attempting to examine press malfeasance, it's attempting to discredit establish facts by vaguely lumping these unrelated things together. Mixed along with what is not explicitly stated in the unread Mueller report. And to do so preemptively to fix opinion about a report before it's even available publicly.
This article is neither reporting nor analysis, although it pretends to be. It is indistinguishable from countless others that appear in Turkey, Venezuela, Hungary and other nations in a similar state. The names are different and the language is English and that's all.
It is another attempt to de-legitimize the press using exactly the same techniques in every other nascent autocracy: blur one persons words with another, blur opinion pieces with reporting and wildly paraphrase them. Blend irrelevant errors over unconnected annoying fact. Do all this preemptively.
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#136Although I agree with many of the points here, unfortunately the piece itself has made the same mistake as the media it criticises: it's jumping to conclusions a little prematurely. Why read so much into the lack of indictments when Mueller's team have agreed to the standard that they cannot indict a sitting president? [1] Let's just wait and see -- I'm fed of speculation at this point. [1] https://www.washingtonpost…
Because to have collusion you need to have multiple parties colluding. They haven't indicted anymore Russians or any other members of the Trump campaign, and no existing indictment has been due to collusion. So even though the President can't be indicted, the indication that no other indictments means that collusion is not a part of the report. There may be other offenses that Trump have committed, but that is even M…
Collusion, like "Crooked Hillary" are terms Trump used courtesy of Cambridge Analytica to control the narrative. The investigation was to look for coordination and links between Russia and the Trump campaign, along with obstruction of justice as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#137I think the old guard media has misstepped on this, not for ideological reasons but for clicks. More banal certainly, but somehow worse, I think. Even the conservative media continued to talk about it, railing against, because it drives clicks. What we really need, and hopefully comes from this reckoning, is a new model of financing journalism that can be free to act in the public interest, and is built with that in…
I agree with you. At least PBS news seems to honestly attempt to be impartial. Just my opinion but PBS is just on a higher level of honesty and fairness than MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I respect your opinions of the press, I must also rhetorically ask, “Are you sure you want to be taking these men at their word?” https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/some-clues/cid/1669915
I am not trying to cause a flamewar here. Or to go off down on any rabbit holes. Even the most odious of people can be taken at their word about some things. The heroin addict in the village might not be responsible for every burglary in the village even if they are responsible for 95% of them. In England we have a tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty. RussiaGate and whatever happened in your linked…
My neighbor tells me they never let their dog defecate in my yard.
Guess what? With not even that much effort I can find out that their dog is outside and unattended most of the day. (Means/Opportunity)
I can infer they don't like to leash the dog, due to the frequency the dog can be found roaming the neighborhood. (Motive)
I've seem the neighbors unattended dog defecate in other neighbors yards. (Precedent)
I've even had to walk it home a couple of times as well. (more precedent)
I COULD go through the trouble of setting up a bunch of cameras to catch it red pawed as it were, however, that's kind of a moot point, because I know the neighbor has the means, motive, opportunity, and a history of prior behavior.
This is not only a preponderance of evidence, but in the absence of someone else's dog traipsing through my property, this could even be legally considered beyond a reasonable doubt.
After reading your various replies, I just want to leave you with a word of caution: not everyone is worth trusting, even in the absence of direct proof. Especially if you can collect a preponderance of evidence that suggests that an action isn't outside their expected behavioral envelope.
The biggest problem we face isn't a problem of unreliable sources, but a crisis of ease of manufacture of the blatantly untrue combined with an asymmetrical distribution of the necessary skills/tools to refute.
We're still well equipped to deal with this type of situation, but it requires an elevated level of skepticism until we solve the problem of information provenance.
If there is one thing we have, going for us, however, it is a large store of information recorded from times before misinformation was so trivially distributed and manufactured to work from, and the wherewithal to reason from it. Trust, I think, is going to develop into a completely different beast in the 21st century from what it was in the 20th.
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the Obama administration were the ones who ignored the Russia meddling. They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. They also ignored violations of the nuclear treaty, various previous hacking attempts, cancelled…
> They knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. Except the reporting was clear about the source since June. The President wanted to publicize it earlier to but McConell refused to sign a bipartisan condemnation. Even then…
McConnell's office disputed Biden's account, as reported by Politico, "pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking."
Comey reportedly wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017. Two sources with knowledge about the matter told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort.
Obama should have publicized it instead of sitting on it, regardless if everyone wanted to sign on or not. Putting it all off on McConnell isn't really acceptable when you're President, but to be fair Biden pushed the blame, not Obama, Obama doesn't think he would do anything differently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-h...
Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a scandal if it isn't true? And you're right, Obama never had anything in this scope, it's worse, because people died from things he perpetuated. 1) Fast and Furious: Continued program that caused a border agent to be murdered with one of the many guns the US sold to the cartels. 2) Benghazi: We all know this disaster that killed 4 Americans. Severely understaffed embassy that should have never even been there.…
All of those were less consequential (and with half of those unfounded) and didn't warrant a SCO investigation .
Which are unfounded, and how are deaths less consequential?
The only reason a SCO investigation was pushed for in this case is because the media stoked for it.