You're conflating two stories. The Buzzfeed release of an unverified document, and the CNN stuff that was also very damning but not based on that document.
Whatever the motive, it was quickly leaked – first to CNN, which reported on the material on Wednesday. That triggered a controversial decision by BuzzFeed to publish an unredacted version of the documents on its website. It is unclear where the BuzzFeed version came from. The author of the reports had been insistent on blotting out references to his Russian sources in the copies he gave to the press, including the Guardian, out of fear for their safety. The unredacted version could have come from the original client, who commissioned the research, or from intermediaries between the counter-intelligence contractor and the client.
You're conflating two stories. The Buzzfeed release of an unverified document, and the CNN stuff that was also very damning but not based on that document.
Whatever the motive, it was quickly leaked – first to CNN, which reported on the material on Wednesday. That triggered a controversial decision by BuzzFeed to publish an unredacted version of the documents on its website. It is unclear where the BuzzFeed version came from. The author of the reports had been insistent on blotting out references to his Russian sources in the copies he gave to the press, including the Guardian, out of fear for their safety. The unredacted version could have come from the original client, who commissioned the research, or from intermediaries between the counter-intelligence contractor and the client.
The key thing in the CNN story was that the 4 intel heads briefed Donald Trump on it. Not the document contents itself.
So really, the key thing was, that CNN reported on exactly the same material as Buzzfeed? Which is likely false? I'm not conflating two stories? And they likely reported it so the anchors could then have cover to mention the salacious details?
tonkadtx wrote:So really, the key thing was, that CNN reported on exactly the same material as Buzzfeed? Which is likely false? I'm not conflating two stories? And they likely reported it so the anchors could then have cover to mention the salacious details?
tonkadtx wrote:So really, the key thing was, that CNN reported on exactly the same material as Buzzfeed? Which is likely false? I'm not conflating two stories? And they likely reported it so the anchors could then have cover to mention the salacious details?
It's also irrelevant-- Trump is able to effectively paint himself as a victim in a way that insulates him from credible attacks. CNN loses, Trump wins.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
CNN reported the existence of the fake dossier, while BuzzFeed actually published the fake dossier. Both stories are predicated on the same fake dossier.
tonkadtx wrote:CNN reported the existence of the fake dossier, while BuzzFeed actually published the fake dossier. Both stories are predicated on the same fake dossier.
The news-worthy thing was that the 4 intel heads briefed Trump on the dossier.
You don't think that is newsworthy? I think whatever the intel heads told Trump is newsworthy. Unfortunately, it is also mostly classified.
Trump is able to effectively paint himself as a victim...
That is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. Trumpistas will wring their hands and fret. The rest of folks will at a minimum see fake but accurate.
nafod wrote:Trumpistas will wring their hands and fret. The rest of folks will at a minimum see fake but accurate.
Fact is that neither CNN nor BuzzFeed met basic journalistic ethics or standards on this story. This is an unforced error.
How do you figure on the CNN thing?
Also, why are you playing pundit? News comes out and people want to go all meta.
Trump's polls have been gradually worsening. It's not like he's winning somehow.
When CNN reported the existence (which nobody else did), people went looking. Other news organizations understood the rules, CNN forgot them. CNN's credibility is hurt here. CNN played into Trump's hands and allowed him to paint them with a broad brush. People who hate Trump should be pissed as hell about CNN and BuzzFeed giving the orange one a get out of free card-- it's hard to discredit him after making him a victim.
I assume that you're talking about the same polling organizations that had Hillary winning the election comfortably.
Last edited by Turdacious on Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
nafod wrote:Trumpistas will wring their hands and fret. The rest of folks will at a minimum see fake but accurate.
Fact is that neither CNN nor BuzzFeed met basic journalistic ethics or standards on this story. This is an unforced error.
How do you figure on the CNN thing?
Also, why are you playing pundit? News comes out and people want to go all meta.
Trump's polls have been gradually worsening. It's not like he's winning somehow.
When CNN reported the existence (which nobody else did), people went looking. Other news organizations understood the rules, CNN forgot them. CNN's credibility is hurt here. CNN played into Trump's hands and allowed him to paint them with a broad brush.
It's impossible for CNN to have their credibility hurt by an accusation from Trump, and everybody has had this document for quite a while. Nobody "went looking."
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:It's impossible for CNN to have their credibility hurt by an accusation from Trump, and everybody has had this document for quite a while. Nobody "went looking."
CNN's viewers presumably did. It's a reasonable allusion. It's not as bad as going balls deep on pizzagate, but it's not good either.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Grandpa's Spells wrote:It's impossible for CNN to have their credibility hurt by an accusation from Trump, and everybody has had this document for quite a while. Nobody "went looking."
CNN's viewers presumably did. It's a reasonable allusion. It's not as bad as going balls deep on pizzagate, but it's not good either.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but while Buzzfeed is getting thrashed, essentially nobody with journalistic standards is criticizing CNN. Here's Shepard Smith presenting Fox News's opinion
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Grandpa's Spells wrote:You pivot as if the position you took 5 minutes ago isn't still in the thread.
Tuesday night, CNN reported that intelligence officials have alerted Donald Trump to the existence of a document—apparently compiled by a former British intelligence officer at the behest of rival campaigns—which alleges that Trump's campaign engaged in secret coordination with the Russian government because Russia is blackmailing him. (The document does definitively exist, but it's not at all clear that the accusations contained therein are legitimate, and NBC has reported that in fact Trump wasn't ever told about it.)
let's start by ignoring the 2013 miss universe pageant in russia. that's a "tie," but we'll give donald a pass.
ties could be loans or equity financing for trump projects from russian banks or russian businesses.
ties could be negotiations or contractual arrangements with russian businesses to do business in russia or other parts of the world. we know his son-in-law has been pursuing a deal in china--russia, too?
ties could be communications between trump, his staff, or surrogates with russians during the campaign. did monafort, who was paid by pro-russian guys in the ukraine, have ties directly to russians and did those ties yield information to the trump campaign?
those are a few possibilities that spring to mind.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
