• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politco sent Articles to DNC for Review

jonny5 said:
Its simply suspicious. I could see them asking questions, but providing their entire report under a secret agreement not to talk about it?
Click to expand...

Well, the agreement not to talk about it is there specifically because of how it might look or be made to look. If all they were doing is saying "here's is what we will say, do you want us to include any rebuttal?" I don't see the problem. If they were instead saying "here, would you like to edit this to suit your liking", then there's a problem.
 
bubbabgone said:
The reason is, that the email could be seen as a heads-up from Vogel (per agreement) to the DNC about the as yet unpublished story.
A heads-up enables the target to prepare themselves. That's obvious, right?
Doesn't matter whether the information in it had been available to anyone who thought to look or if it was pulled together from several sources.
It looks like Vogel, the Politico guy, sent the DNC the entire story before publishing it.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see that as a big problem. If he called them to verify or otherwise comment on the details of the story, it has the same effect - they are prepared for the story coming out. If at the end of the day, journalists get the story out, whether they give the targets advance notice doesn't matter a whole lot to me. They got the story out, and it doesn't look good for Hillary of the DNC.

For another thing, it appears likely that Vogel had the "agreement" with the DNC to let them have the completed story prior to publication and it probably was agreed on in a discussion about parts of the story that the DNC contributed or was contacted about or worse, essentially wrote.
That kind of agreement should never have been made.
Click to expand...

We really don't know they were allowed to write anything. Clearly the DNC was given an opportunity to comment because officials are quoted.

For example, as you know the Clinton Foundation appears to have been a huge money laundering and personal enrichment scheme from the get go involving mostly corrupt foreign businesses and governments.
All of the information gathered about the Clinton Foundation is obviously available or there could have been no reporting about it.
Can you imagine a reputable investigative journalist alerting the Clintons with the entire expose' before they publish it?
Even if the Clinton's contributed to it, any agreement to do such a thing is disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can imagine them "alerting" them by contacting them to verify and/or comment on the allegations, give their side, an opportunity to rebut or disprove parts of it, etc. It's a normal part of journalism. The distinction apparently is giving them the whole story or just verbally or in writing giving them key pieces so they have a chance to comment, etc. I just don't see that as a big deal so long as the story comes out, and in this case the story was published - we can all see it online as we speak.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?
Click to expand...

He's just being a good little attack dog to make sure his team gets away with whatever they want. They can do no wrong.
 
JasperL said:
I guess I don't see that as a big problem. If he called them to verify or otherwise comment on the details of the story, it has the same effect - they are prepared for the story coming out. If at the end of the day, journalists get the story out, whether they give the targets advance notice doesn't matter a whole lot to me. They got the story out, and it doesn't look good for Hillary of the DNC.



We really don't know they were allowed to write anything. Clearly the DNC was given an opportunity to comment because officials are quoted.



Sure, I can imagine them "alerting" them by contacting them to verify and/or comment on the allegations, give their side, an opportunity to rebut or disprove parts of it, etc. It's a normal part of journalism. The distinction apparently is giving them the whole story or just verbally or in writing giving them key pieces so they have a chance to comment, etc. I just don't see that as a big deal so long as the story comes out, and in this case the story was published - we can all see it online as we speak.
Click to expand...

We disagree on what amounts to perception. What you see as benign I see as an excuse for complicity.
You can ask a source if they were quoted correctly without giving them the entire piece.
When you give them the entire unpublished story they have the opportunity to get all their ducks in a row, their media allies prepped with the talking points, and their favorite "fact-checkers" version of the details ready.
Which to some of us, is the real story here and what the leaked email represents.

For myself, what Politico arranged to do with the DNC doesn't pass the "what if" test.
That being ... what if it was the RNC or the Trump campaign.

An example, on TV Bob Woodward said that Washington Post journalists were going to release a book about Donald Trump before the election.
Remember they had assigned 20 of them to his campaign.
Do you think they'll give Trump an advance copy?
When I heard that, the obvious question would have been "Is there going to be a Hillary Clinton book".
Good "what if" question, no?
 
JasperL said:
LOL, a few people on this thread are asserting that Politico gave the DNC editorial control over the article, and that the DNC could rewrite or kill it. I'm asking for evidence of that. Your post isn't responsive. Guess I'll keep waiting....
Click to expand...

Im saying someone in the media should probably follow up on this evidence. Isnt that their job?

Here is Briebarts follow up

Leaked Emails: Politico's Ken Vogel Filed Story with DNC Before His Own Editors - Breitbart

Paustenbach sent another email April 30: “Ken is closing his story this afternoon, so I got him our previous quote on the JFAs. Also, background about all that we are doing and have done to support the states, especially the points Amy made. Will keep folks posted.” Joint Fundraising Activities, or JFA, are the arrangements between the DNC and other political entities. Federal protects the position of the national parties in the political process by allowing them the virtually unrestricted ability to coordinate with other entities, while non-party committees must operate independently.
Click to expand...
Given the heads-up that Vogel’s story is about to post, Miranda replies: “Absolutely, we’ll reinforce it.”

Indicating that Politico effectively gave the DNC warning allowing them to prepare their defense. Then there are other emails showing other relationships with reporters.

The communication officials cherry-picked reporters.

“We [have] been working him for weeks in general on writing up something positive,” Miranda wrote of The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent on May 20. “We think he’d play ball.”
Click to expand...


Democrats recruited reporters to slant Sanders coverage: emails | New York Post
 
Mr Person said:
Well, the agreement not to talk about it is there specifically because of how it might look or be made to look. If all they were doing is saying "here's is what we will say, do you want us to include any rebuttal?" I don't see the problem. If they were instead saying "here, would you like to edit this to suit your liking", then there's a problem.
Click to expand...

They obviously saw a problem with it if they wanted to keep it secret.
 
Question answered by Politico. They hosed it.

On Sunday, Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring told The Huffington Post in an email that sharing stories with sources isn’t standard practice.

“Politico’s policy is to not share editorial content pre-publication except as approved by editors,” Dayspring wrote. “In this case the reporter was attempting to check some very technical language and figures involving the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign. Checking the relevant passages for accuracy was responsible and consistent with our standards; Sharing the full piece was a mistake and not consistent with our policies. There were no substantive changes to the piece and in fact the final story was blasted out by the both RNC and the Sanders campaign, and prompted Politifact to revise its rating on the issue in question.”
Click to expand...

Politico Admits ‘Mistake’ In Sending DNC An Article In Advance
 
Slyfox696 said:
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.

I don't think that's suspicious at all.
Click to expand...

Why would he trust the DNC with his work?
 
JasperL said:
There is no evidence in the emails that's what was going on. Other than that, I have no idea. On what basis are you alleging/asserting the DNC had the ability to approve or kill the story, or at least rewrite it?
Click to expand...

Then what agreement were they referring to?
 
Mason66 said:
Then what agreement were they referring to?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but my statement was pretty clear. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that the DNC was given the opportunity to rewrite or kill the story. If you have any evidence, let's see it.

FWIW, my guess is the agreement was to send all or parts of the story to the DNC for comment and to correct any factual errors that might have existed. We know that little changed from the version sent to DNC and the final published story.

It's weird defending Politico on anything. I don't have a great deal of respect for their kind of reporting - too often it's just serving as the transcriber for talking points put out by the two major parties, and I don't have them bookmarked or read any reporting by them not cited by others. But in this case with this story they did some actual journalism that isn't flattering to the DNC or Hillary, and published it. I don't see them sharing the story beforehand as a serious issue given the ultimate result. It's 1000 times better than the crap we see so often in the Beltway press, "Senior WH officials say..." "Other officials who requested anonymity dispute the account" etc. which is in my view nothing more than PR flacks for the political class.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Because he still has a copy of it? I don't guess I understand your question.
Click to expand...

The DNC can give it another outlet.

I wouldn't trust somebody with my original work until it was published.
 
Mason66 said:
The DNC can give it another outlet.

I wouldn't trust somebody with my original work until it was published.
Click to expand...

They could but there's no upside and a huge downside from burning the trust of a reporter and potentially an entire news operation.
 
Mason66 said:
The DNC can give it another outlet.
Click to expand...
I guess they could...but that wouldn't make much sense, for them to distribute an article which is pretty critical of them.

I wouldn't trust somebody with my original work until it was published.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would either, but it sounds as if the reporter and the person to whom it was sent had some kind of an agreement. Maybe the reporter was fed info, in exchange for the ability to tell their side before posting.
 
So any guesses as to whether they run damaging stories by the RNC?

My bet is no.
 
the MEDIA gets their money from liberalism and that is why they push that

they get as many unwise as possible as voters to fool and brainwash and they get them to TAX the rich and bring the money to the UNWISE so that the media and their sponsers will be able to fool them and grab that money.. the media is what brings liberalism and brings crooks to get elected

here is big news out of china...cracking down on the unwise from getting brainwashed or wasting time with internet news... doing this will raise GDP scores and allowing a nation to stop production to stay drunk on drama and entertainment will make a nation to fall

here is china BEING WISE

////////////////////////

China Bans Internet News Reporting as Media Crackdown Widens
 
jonny5 said:
Its simply suspicious. I could see them asking questions, but providing their entire report under a secret agreement not to talk about it?
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Well, the agreement not to talk about it is there specifically because of how it might look or be made to look. If all they were doing is saying "here's is what we will say, do you want us to include any rebuttal?" I don't see the problem. If they were instead saying "here, would you like to edit this to suit your liking", then there's a problem.
Click to expand...

jonny5 said:
They obviously saw a problem with it if they wanted to keep it secret.
Click to expand...



In your personal life, do you announce every little thing you or say to one person, to everyone else you know?

If you were in the habit of oversharing, wouldn't you tend to undershare those things you personally deemed unimportant and innocent?

Of course not.




If the DNC is guilty, then they wouldn't announce it. If they were innocent, then they wouldn't announce it. Therefore, not announcing it is not consciousness of guilt evidence in these circumstances. (Though, I note, if one would think "DNC --> Hillary --> LIAR!", one would be more likely to assume guilt. But it wouldn't be based on the evidence, or, at least whatever evidence was available at the time of my post to which you replied).

I don't know what the agreement was, therefor, I will not rush to condemn. I stand by my post.
 
Mr Person said:
In your personal life, do you announce every little thing you or say to one person, to everyone else you know?

If you were in the habit of oversharing, wouldn't you tend to undershare those things you personally deemed unimportant and innocent?

Of course not.




If the DNC is guilty, then they wouldn't announce it. If they were innocent, then they wouldn't announce it. Therefore, not announcing it is not consciousness of guilt evidence in these circumstances. (Though, I note, if one would think "DNC --> Hillary --> LIAR!", one would be more likely to assume guilt. But it wouldn't be based on the evidence, or, at least whatever evidence was available at the time of my post to which you replied).

I don't know what the agreement was, therefor, I will not rush to condemn. I stand by my post.
Click to expand...

The politico reporter did announce it. Heres my story, dont share it. Why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom