Glenn Greenwald: The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages . . .

Slyfox696 said:

Uh huh, thank you for sharing.

Evidence which proves and evidence which suggests are certainly two different things. We have plenty of evidence to suggest however, confirmed evidence.

Trump's son, Trump's son-in-law and campaign chairman took a meeting with a Russian attorney having been told the Russian government supported Donald Trump in the election and did so with the intention of getting dirt on Clinton.

That's not ignorance.

Her Democratic opponent in the primary process of a private organization. HUGE difference. Don't waste time peddling that narrative.

I have always said Comey did the right thing throughout the process, including his letter to Congress a few days before the election. And if Clinton doesn't like it, then perhaps she shouldn't have kept a private e-mail server to avoid FOIA requests.

Not sure where you're going with this, but I want to acknowledge I read it.

No, that doesn't mean Trump was in on it...but the constant denials of wrongdoing by Russia from Trump, the lies by members of Trump's campaign team and administration (and family), the fact we KNOW Russia interfered, the firing of the FBI Director by Trump for investigating Russia, the meeting of Trump's closest campaign team with a Russian government connected attorney with the knowledge Russia was supporting Trump, Trump seemingly randomly deciding to campaign in the Rust Belt at the end of the election season at the same time Russia targeted fake news on social media to those states, and several other pieces of information we have certainly counts as evidence which suggests.

But his business history makes up for that.

I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced, but I think it is unlikely the Trump team didn't know of Russia's assistance and I think it likely there was some coordination, even if the coordination was on a "wink wink" basis. And as far as the media reporting on it, as I said, it's clear there is an interest in the story, so they are trying to rush out stories to make the most money. Sometimes they get details wrong, but far more often than not, their reporting has been pretty close to accurate in the overall scheme of things.

Click to expand...

Why are you even here, then? It's certainly not to discuss the topic of the thread, because you haven't really done that.

Harshaw said:

Why are you even here, then? It's certainly not to discuss the topic of the thread, because you haven't really done that.

Click to expand...

I've discussed the topic with two other posters already, people I believe are honestly wanting to discuss it and have discussed it from more than one angle. The fact you would ask this question while quoting a post of mine to one of those posters only reinforces in my mind what I believe to be your intentions in this thread.

Have a good day.

Slyfox696 said:

I've discussed the topic with two other posters already, people I believe are honestly wanting to discuss it and have discussed it from more than one angle. The fact you would ask this question while quoting a post of mine to one of those posters only reinforces in my mind what I believe to be your intentions in this thread.

Have a good day.

Click to expand...

You're discussing Trump and evidence against him. That isn't the topic.

It's funny how you shifted the discussion away from Greenwald's article, and concerns with the media, to what you'd rather talk about, all while trying to say I'm the dishonest one.

It's almost certain you didn't read the article. This weaselly thread derailment speaks for itself.

Harshaw said:

. . . and Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

Greenwald is no conservative. This is an extensive piece on the recklessness of the media, its copious and often breathless errors when it comes to reporting on Trump, and its opacity as to how these mistakes keep being made.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09...-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

He states clearly why it matters:



Note that the mistakes all fall one way -- anti-Trump.

The more this keeps up, the more justified people are in believing that it IS largely "fake news." Because so much of it has been. Trump being a blowhard, Trump being a liar, doesn't mean the media haven't been terrible at their jobs, and the way the mistakes fall reasonably suggest a specific agenda. If they don't want that perception, they need to get their act together. If they don't, the perception is completely deserved.

Click to expand...

I frequently read Glenn Greenwald. Don’t misconstrue the meaning of your quote from Greenwald’s article as being an exclusive testament to Trump abuse by the media. Greenwald is imparting a much greater context and meaning regarding media manipulation and lies.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

Click to expand...

FYI, Trump has over 4 decades of Public made legal documents from everything from being sued by the government for fair housing racial discrimination based on numerous stings where blacks were sent to his various tenant buildings to attempt to rent and were denied, then right behind them whites were sent to the same buildings and were able rent the same vacancies.

And the list of Trump’s unethical bull****, in every aspect of his life, right up to the $25 million loss in court after cheating thousand of people who couldn’t afford to lose their hard earn money in his Trump University scheme. The list goes on.

Trump lied so many times during his campaign - and had no shame despite knowing all of his lies were recorded on national TV and thousands of supporters at his rallies on their cell phones.

FOR GOD SAKES don’t dare wander into Trump’s chronicled past and declare all of those years of balant dishonest behaviors were a conspiracy waiting to be sprung on the public at some future date when he decided to run for president.

Make no mistake. Trump is the same narcissistic, dishonest asshole he’s always has been.

Removable Mind said:

I frequently read Glenn Greenwald. Don’t misconstrue the meaning of your quote from Greenwald’s article as being an exclusive testament to Trump abuse by the media. Greenwald is imparting a much greater context and meaning regarding media manipulation and lies.



FYI, Trump has over 4 decades of Public made legal documents from everything from being sued by the government for fair housing racial discrimination based on numerous stings where blacks were sent to his various tenant buildings to attempt to rent and were denied, then right behind them whites were sent to the same buildings and were able rent the same vacancies.

And the list of Trump’s unethical bull****, in every aspect of his life, right up to the $25 million loss in court after cheating thousand of people who couldn’t afford to lose their hard earn money in his Trump University scheme. The list goes on.

Trump lied so many times during his campaign - and had no shame despite knowing all of his lies were recorded on national TV and thousands of supporters at his rallies on their cell phones.

FOR GOD SAKES don’t dare wander into Trump’s chronicled past and declare all of those years of balant dishonest behaviors were a conspiracy waiting to be sprung on the public at some future date when he decided to run for president.

Make no mistake. Trump is the same narcissistic, dishonest asshole he’s always has been.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think I misconstrued? I didn't say anything like what you say here.

What Trump has or hasn't done isn't the issue here.

Harshaw said:

. . . and Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

Greenwald is no conservative. This is an extensive piece on the recklessness of the media, its copious and often breathless errors when it comes to reporting on Trump, and its opacity as to how these mistakes keep being made.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09...-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

He states clearly why it matters:



Note that the mistakes all fall one way -- anti-Trump.

The more this keeps up, the more justified people are in believing that it IS largely "fake news." Because so much of it has been. Trump being a blowhard, Trump being a liar, doesn't mean the media haven't been terrible at their jobs, and the way the mistakes fall reasonably suggest a specific agenda. If they don't want that perception, they need to get their act together. If they don't, the perception is completely deserved.

Click to expand...

Greenwald is a fake news hack himself.

Harshaw said:

You're discussing Trump and evidence against him.

Click to expand...

As well as things which are on topic, as I told you.

If CNN is becoming a bit more like Fox news, I agree, that's a problem.

He raises a good point, that if that particular message was coordinated beyond our 24/7, always connected, digital distribution, then it would be nice to know. Was it? You can't be sure either way, up to CNN to say.
- was it more anti-CNN types (pro Trump, Pro Fox), trying to discredit CNN?
- was it powerful democrats pulling the strings?
- was it just really, really sloppy work by multiple people?

Fox news coordinates directly with the White House, so we know Republicans don't actually care about partisan news. But non-**** news definitely should be held to a high standard.

I sometimes flip to Fox to see crazy, with a mix of other networks, MSNBC, CNN, etc. Sometimes I stop on OAN just to stare bewildered at that lady with the wide set eyes that seems like she's some 18 year old playing "mean girl" in a millennial teen movie. My wife yells at me to change it immediately, she hates seeing her on TV.

Similarly, ever see NHK? That station is by-god-fascinating. I've watched people debate how long to let puffer fish meat age...stressing about 3 days vs 4, picking a $20K Koi before it's patterns are matured, how to restore natural wood with natural, minimalist products, all with that funky Japanese eagerness. Some great stuff.

Hawkeye10 said:

HEAR! HEAR!

The stink is finally getting to be too much to bear for some, good on who ever this Greenwald chap is!

Click to expand...

I know some are gleeful about this media bashing stuff, but I am a bit sad.

Murrow would be rolling in his grave.

Mach said:

If CNN is becoming a bit more like Fox news, I agree, that's a problem.

Click to expand...

CNN still is what they've been for years...they are the TMZ of cable news. Fox and MSNBC are clearly designed to push partisan agendas. CNN pushes whichever story they think will make money. When airline MH370 went down, CNN covered that story nonstop. When Trump's Access Hollywood video came out, they ran that story relentlessly. When H. Clinton's e-mail server was the story, they talked about it nonstop.

CNN prostitutes itself to whatever story they think will make money and they run it in the ground. But, despite their obvious (and understandable) disdain for Donald Trump, they are as close as it gets to centrist in cable news.

He raises a good point, that if that particular message was coordinated beyond our 24/7, always connected, digital distribution, then it would be nice to know. Was it? You can't be sure either way, up to CNN to say.
- was it more anti-CNN types (pro Trump, Pro Fox), trying to discredit CNN?
- was it powerful democrats pulling the strings?
- was it just really, really sloppy work by multiple people?

Click to expand...

But what if most of what is being reported is accurate? What if the mistakes are a small percentage compared to the overall accuracies?

Slyfox696 said:

As well as things which are on topic, as I told you.

Click to expand...

You've said an entire two things remotely on topic, and you've shown no interest in discussing those with anyone once you've declared what's what. The rest has been your axe to grind against Trump.

You have zero good faith here.

RetiredUSN said:

I know some are gleeful about this media bashing stuff, but I am a bit sad.

Murrow would be rolling in his grave.

Click to expand...

It is so much more than sad, it is a prime driver of dysfunction in America.

The old guys, the Real Journalists, had ever so much more sense than these modern willful idiots.

Slyfox696 said:

But what if most of what is being reported is accurate? What if the mistakes are a small percentage compared to the overall accuracies?

Click to expand...

They've been huge and material mistakes, mistakes which have done things like cause the stock market to crash. That rather outweighs a bunch of smaller stuff they might have gotten right, and is a MUCH more serious problem than you're willing to concede.

And, they've shown no interest in being transparent about how and why these huge, material mistakes have been made.

Believe it or not, as Greenwald says, and I quoted, there can be a serious problem with the media and with Trump at the same time. Trump being awful doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the media. Trump being awful means the media needs to be at its best. You're blowing that off like it's nothing.

Slyfox696 said:

But what if most of what is being reported is accurate? What if the mistakes are a small percentage compared to the overall accuracies?

Click to expand...

According to punditfact, Fox News is deplorable, MSNBC and NBC better, and CNN leads the pack in accuracy.
PunditFact checks in on the cable news channels | PolitiFact

Pew surveys CNN as the most popular, and the most trustworthy
Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. | Pew Research Center
(no such ratings seem to be scientific..they are all just huge margin of error surveys it seems)

But the reality is those are highly popular news junkfood, as you noted. Less sensational news is likely to be found on something like NPR/PBS, or sourced Reuters for example. But of the junkfood bunch, CNN is probably as you note, one of the most centrist.

If you're going to drop what you think is a bombshell allegation, and they did think it was, they should test it with additional scrutiny. To me it looked like they were saying they have a set of procedures that's OK with two source verification....but I bet that's for any reporting. When it's a big thing that you're first out on, you gotta have an even tighter screening. While under attack by the President of the United States, and your bombshell, first-out news is PERSONALLY TARGETED AGAINST him...yeah, I think triple dog dare is appropriate.

Let me put it this way. If my organization was under attack directly from POTUS, and we had a few stumbles in the past, and someone came to me with a bombshell allegation against POTUS that no one else had picked up up, and I tell them if they follow standard procedure and it won't matter if they get it wrong...someone should fire ME instead....
How much do you check things that are average, vs very important, vs "career life or death" important? I use a graded scale. I might stay up all night, maybe multiple nights, do to the verification necessary in extreme circumstances. I wouldn't just do the standard checking unless the standard checks were known to be flawless..which they clearly are not.

Again, they are already better than Fox, and everyone is 100x better than Trump, this is lesson learned for them. I agree, in itself it's not really a public story except for helping Trump/Fox agenda. So yeah, I shouldn't have even commented on it other than the source is not a highly partisan source...but he's a guy with his own agenda no doubt. I'd rather discuss the details so that people can see how sausage is made, and stop letting Trump direct the story with hand waiving and lies.

Harshaw said:

You're blowing that off like it's nothing.

Click to expand...

Physicians literally kill people all day every day through error. Kill. People. Kids, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters. I do think it's less serious than you're willing to concede.

The only thing that makes this high profile is Trump and Fox have been working together to attack Fox competition which also happens to be non-Right wing news and is therefore highly critical of Trump (as any sane individual or organization is, because he's a walking disaster). I am only posting because I like details and inner-working type reports, of which this ended up leading me to. I'd do it differently, as I said.
But is this some crisis of accuracy in CNN or the media in general? Come on, you don't really buy that.

Harshaw said:

You've said an entire two things remotely on topic

Click to expand...

More falsehoods from you, which I figured would be the case in this thread. When you demonstrate an ability to accurately reply to my posts consistently, we can discuss the topic. Otherwise, I don't plan on doing much more than just keep pointing out all the things you say about me which are false.

Have a great day.

Mach said:

According to punditfact, Fox News is deplorable, MSNBC and NBC better, and CNN leads the pack in accuracy.
PunditFact checks in on the cable news channels | PolitiFact

Pew surveys CNN as the most popular, and the most trustworthy
Which news organization is the most trusted? The answer is complicated. | Pew Research Center
(no such ratings seem to be scientific..they are all just huge margin of error surveys it seems)

But the reality is those are highly popular news junkfood, as you noted. Less sensational news is likely to be found on something like NPR/PBS, or sourced Reuters for example. But of the junkfood bunch, CNN is probably as you note, one of the most centrist.

Click to expand...

I didn't review your links but the information you posted doesn't surprise me.

All things considered, CNN is about as center as it gets in today's political climate. Their hosts obviously lean liberal, but they attempt to balance that out with a bevy of differing viewpoints, from Congress people and contributors alike.

If you're going to drop what you think is a bombshell allegation, and they did think it was, they should test it with additional scrutiny. To me it looked like they were saying they have a set of procedures that's OK with two source verification....but I bet that's for any reporting. When it's a big thing that you're first out on, you gotta have an even tighter screening.

Click to expand...

It depends what is more important to you, money or crossing every t and dotting every i. For the details of stories which turn out to not be entirely true, they report many more that are true. And if another organization puts out your scoop first because you're going overkill on verification, then that's money out of your pocket and the big bosses at Time Warner aren't going to be very happy.

Idealism is great, but reality plays its part too. If ALL media outlets would hold themselves to the same standards, it would make for a better news reporting system overall, but obviously that is not going to happen.

While under attack by the President of the United States

Click to expand...

The fact this is a factor in this process is rather absurd. I'm not saying you're wrong (you're not), just saying this should never be a factor in the process of news reporting and it's ridiculous that it is.

Slyfox696 said:

More falsehoods from you, which I figured would be the case in this thread. When you demonstrate an ability to accurately reply to my posts consistently, we can discuss the topic. Otherwise, I don't plan on doing much more than just keep pointing out all the things you say which are false.

Have a great day.

Click to expand...

I haven't said a single false thing. It's apparently just what you have to tell yourself to avoid answering points that you don't feel up to answering adequately.

I find it rather cowardly and craven.

Mach said:

Physicians literally kill people all day every day through error. Kill. People. Kids, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters. I do think it's less serious than you're willing to concede.

Click to expand...

A physician has never killed someone through error which then made the stock market crash.

Additionally, when physicians make such mistakes, there are transparent investigations into what went wrong, especially when it happens again and again.

The only thing that makes this high profile is Trump and Fox have been working together to attack Fox competition which also happens to be non-Right wing news and is therefore highly critical of Trump (as any sane individual or organization is, because he's a walking disaster).

Click to expand...

So, it's not high-profile because it's major news organizations getting story after story wrong about the most powerful man in the world, stories which can and do have real-world and possibly far-reaching effects; it's "only" high-profile because there's a conspiracy between Trump and Fox News to make them look bad?

Really? That's your argument?

If not, please clarify.

I am only posting because I like details and inner-working type reports, of which this ended up leading me to. I'd do it differently, as I said.

Click to expand...

Do what differently?

But is this some crisis of accuracy in CNN or the media in general? Come on, you don't really buy that.

Click to expand...

Greenwald certainly thinks it is, and it's a beat he's been for a while. What specifically in his article do you take issue with, that you think leads him to a dubious conclusion?

Slyfox696 said:

just saying this should never be a factor in the process of news reporting and it's ridiculous that it is.

Click to expand...

Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.

I think the shareholders of CNN are gambling if they don't want to dot the 'i's on matters that directly, negatively, affect Trump and are "breaking" stories. That's a small subset that would need review, and I think with Trump/Fox full court press on attacking them, it's 100% a profit motive to check that stuff.
But I'm not disagreeing, it's all a calculation. Maybe management is literally fat and happy and lazy and doesn't really want to shake things up and is OK with a dip...that happens too, it's their business to run isn't it? I prefer less risky, so it's probably 50% personal preference on my part

Fake new is one of those cliches that has been beaten to death.
Trump overusing it has caused it to lose it's meaning . Kind of liberals calling trump a nazi or racist/
Originally it was reserved for those people who purposely planted false stories on the internet.

They din't get it wrong or make mistakes, they purposely planted a fake story.

They became prevalent during the last campaign.

Harshaw said:

I haven't said a single false thing.

Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay.

Mach said:

Desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.

Click to expand...

A real shame that's where we are now.

I think the shareholders of CNN are gambling if they don't want to dot the 'i's on matters that directly, negatively, affect Trump and are "breaking" stories. That's a small subset that would need review, and I think with Trump/Fox full court press on attacking them, it's 100% a profit motive to check that stuff.

Click to expand...

I don't know if that's true or not.

It certainly would be interesting to see, of the people who regularly watch CNN, how many people are less inclined to watch because of the Trump full court press. I suspect most of the people who would claim to not want to watch CNN already don't watch CNN (in other words, the Fox News and further right crowd).

But I'm not disagreeing, it's all a calculation. Maybe management is literally fat and happy and lazy and doesn't really want to shake things up and is OK with a dip...that happens too, it's their business to run isn't it? I prefer less risky, so it's probably 50% personal preference on my part

Click to expand...

I know this...CNN has been all Trump all the time, from the very moment he announced his candidacy, for both good and bad. Donald Trump has been great for business these last few years, so I suspect their calculation is better to not be outscooped and take an occasional hit, than double and triple check everything and lose exclusive reporting.

All the same, I'm with you in that I wish all news agencies would take more care to report facts, but it's just not the world we live in today.

KLATTU said:

Fake new is one of those cliches that has been beaten to death.
Trump overusing it has caused it to lose it's meaning . Kind of liberals calling trump a nazi or racist/
Originally it was reserved for those people who purposely planted false stories on the internet.

They din't get it wrong or make mistakes, they purposely planted a fake story.

They became prevalent during the last campaign.

Click to expand...

I agree that the term, a very vague term, has rather lost its meaning. In general terms it is true, but it needs to be refined in meaning. Even more important is news and facts that are never reported by the MSM, or even suppressed.