• 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!

BuzzFeed doesn't give an inch on its story.

Harshaw said:
As I've said in other threads, the credibility of BuzzFeed is surely on the line here, but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media.
Click to expand...

And as others must surely have said to you in those threads: that's a load of steaming hackish ****.

It's also stuffed with hypocrisy. You don't hold yourself personally answerable for the behavior of other conservatives, attorneys, or conservative attorneys. But your political enemies? Why, they're fungible. A gestalt entity, really.

:roll:
 
Harshaw said:
[COLOR="#D3D3D3"]https://talkingpoi...o-mueller-statement-we-stand-by-our-reporting

Their line:



Apparently this is the hill they want to die on, and in so doing, they are necessarily saying that it's the Mueller camp which is wrong about the evidence in the Mueller investigation. This isn't "yeah, but they didn't categorically deny it, so some of it may still be true." This is BuzzFeed saying in no uncertain terms that everything in their story is true, despite the statement from the Special Counsel's office.

As I've said in other threads, the credibility of BuzzFeed is surely on the line here,[/COLOR] but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media. If they circle the wagons around BuzzFeed, and it sure looks like that's what they're inclined to do, then they deserve all the shots of "fake news!" aimed at them.

Unless, of course, BuzzFeed is right and it's the Special Counsel's office which is lying.

Which do you find more likely?
Click to expand...

Then where do you get your news from?
 
madasheck said:
Except that's not how it works. Buzzfeed wouldn't have gone with it without vetting it.
Click to expand...

How was it vetted when the "reporters" never saw any of the alleged documented evidence? That is much like reporting a "confirmed" bigfoot sighting alleged to have physical evidence as proof - you may really want to believe your anonymous sources but why trust them?
 
Weird situation.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright Harshaw, fair enough.

But it's interesting your argument was predicated upon an "if" predicate statement. Which is exactly how the media presented the Buzzfeed article you malign: "If"
Click to expand...

I think most journalists would agree that their bar for accuracy is much higher than someone spouting on the internet. It seems we now have entered an era (or perhaps have been in one for some time) where journalists are now held to the standard previously reserved for tabloids.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How was it vetted when the "reporters" never saw any of the alleged documented evidence? That is much like reporting a "confirmed" bigfoot sighting alleged to have physical evidence as proof - you may really want to believe your anonymous sources but why trust them?
Click to expand...

They have to have sources they can confirm the identity of.
They have to confirm the job or connection that person has to the information.
They have to evaluate the credibility of the source...is it a random person, or someone with a serious job in a serious career (for example) with a reputation.
The information typically has to be plausible - bigfoot sightings are not plausible :p
I'm sure it's a more thorough list in reality, but that's start.

It is interesting in this reporting that Cohen himself contradicted their reporting back in November when he said he took it upon himself to lie. What's their theory about that I wonder.
Do they think Cohen is playing that down to keep it off the Trump/joint defense radar? I can't think of too many plausible explanations.

When Mueller filed that one-off false statements of Cohen about Trump Tower, that kicked off a barrage of what-ifs. Why was it separate from all the other charges, and why did Mueller not care about adding more time for it, etc. A lot of former prosecutors seem to think he's laying the groundwork for something. They don't speculate (even on MSNBC, the pro prosecutors are all measured and reasonable), but they note that there are few reasons other than preparing groundwork for later charges, that things like that are done.

Did Buzzfeed get it right? I have no idea. I also get a bit irked to think that prosecutors go through all this effort to keep this stuff secret, and we have people leaking it just for a "scoop", that could actually damage the investigation or help the alleged accused (Trump), etc.
 
Mr Person said:
And as others must surely have said to you in those threads: that's a load of steaming hackish ****.

It's also stuffed with hypocrisy. You don't hold yourself personally answerable for the behavior of other conservatives, attorneys, or conservative attorneys. But your political enemies? Why, they're fungible. A gestalt entity, really.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Throw all of them in the same pot. Doesn't make any of them look like what we used to call journalists.
 
Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't give a **** as long as Americans stop being hypocrites about Russia.
 
Xelor said:
It's not at all extraordinary to assert that another has errantly characterized the nature of one's own and own organization's activities.
Click to expand...

It is ENTIRELY extraordinary for the Special Counsel's office to do so.

To think that they would do something they almost never do just to nip at the fringes of a news story that's basically correct strains credulity, to say the least.
 
Mach said:
No, that's not what you wrote, you wrote what we claimed, and we corrected you. An in typical Harshaw fashion, you just can't correct yourself, you have to double-down, and accuse us of being wrong.

Here's your attempt at communication:


If someone really meant what you're now backpedaling to, they might write something like this:

Buzzfeed's credibility is on the line, but if MSM backs them, their credibility would also be on the line.
or
Buzzfeed's credibility is on the line, and MSM's may also be on the line. (followed by how it might fulfill the "may also be")/

But you didn't Harshaw, you were very clear in your declaration. You did not say MSM credibility MAY be on the line. You did not say it MIGHT be, if so and so happens. There is no conditional there.
but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media.
That's unconditional.

Buzzfeed's credibly is on the line.
MSM's credibility is on the line.

Do not tell us that's not the case, because clearly it is.

Now, your next statement does have an if, and it correctly belongs in the second statement, where you wrote it.
If MSM circles the wagons around the story
MSM will deserve all of the shots of fake news aimed at them.

This goes a step further than saying MSM will take a hit if they circle the wagons. In bizarre fashion, you make a much broader claim...that ALL l shots at MSM (past 2 years!?!)...whether they were justified or complete B.S. from Trump and right wing media and his base...ALL of it, will be justified, if MSM makes ONE error, that there is no evidence they have or will make. Which is absurd.

All you had to do was clarify, but you couldn't could you? You had to tell us we're all idiots, and you're correct. Typical crap.
Once again:
What evidence do you have to back your claim that MSM is inclined to "circle the wagons" around Buzzfeed?
I have seen all major news media NOT corroborate Buzzfeed, and even some reporting (Farrow) outright saying their own sources do not agree with Buzzfeed. I would be very interested to know what MSM organization has backed Buzzfeed with their own reporting/sourcing...that would be a big story.

Some of us are trying to eek some value out of you thread, but you seem hell bent on attacking us for responding appropriately.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you were unable or unwilling to understand even after it was explained in detail to you. (Chomsky was able.)

But I'm also not going to going to worry about your lunatic rant here. Have a good rest of your weekend.
 
azgreg said:
But why when none of them have any credibility?
Click to expand...

That, of course, is not what I said. I said that the news media at large has its credibility on the line depending on how they deal with this BuzzFeed fiasco. But that's not the same thing.

Nevertheless, one can synthesize the facts from a variety of sources, and taking bias into account. Do you disagree?
 
azgreg said:
Why are you responding to Hawkeye? He has less credibility than BuzzFeed.
Click to expand...

Psst... the reply was not for Hawkeye; it was for others in the thread who could, you know, actually read. :lol:
 
Harshaw said:
That, of course, is not what I said. I said that the news media at large has its credibility on the line depending on how they deal with this BuzzFeed fiasco. But that's not the same thing.

Nevertheless, one can synthesize the facts from a variety of sources, and taking bias into account. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the claim that "all media's credibility is surely on the line here" is a bit hyperbolic. There are many media sources that are highly respectable and do great work.
 
DiAnna said:
Psst... the reply was not for Hawkeye; it was for others in the thread who could, you know, actually read. :lol:
Click to expand...

Regardless, you should never quote him. It gives him a sense that someone gives a **** what he has to say.
 
madasheck said:
Except that's not how it works. Buzzfeed wouldn't have gone with it without vetting it.
Click to expand...

Except that they did. I saw both of the Buzzfeed article authors, one on CNN and one on MSNBC, and they literally contradicted each other. Bottom line, neither of those authors personally saw any of the documents or witness lists that their sources claimed to have seen.

I am a big fan of Mueller; if he broke SCO code of silence to comment on this article, that's enough for me. The article's contents are dead to me, unless and until Mueller's report tells me otherwise.
 
<SNIP: failure of media deemed liberal to call out to conservative's satisfaction the failure of Buzzfeed to justify its article should spill into all liberal media, or, at least, whatever Harshaw says is "news media".

azgreg said:
Then where do you get your news from?
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
Many sources, as everyone should.
Click to expand...

azgreg said:
But why when none of them have any credibility?
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
That, of course, is not what I said. I said that the news media at large has its credibility on the line depending on how they deal with this BuzzFeed fiasco. But that's not the same thing.

Nevertheless, one can synthesize the facts from a variety of sources, and taking bias into account. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

The ever-shifting standard of committed modern conservative thought (Cardinal's point elsewhere) does not apply to those outside the choir. If Buzzfeed produces something that is crap and falls on its own, other liberals are not implicated by virtue of your having named them. Your decision to announce association between BuzzFeed and "the media" is meaningless.

And at this point, people not in the choir have heard it many times before
 
Last edited:
Any idea of the cost this investigation has imposed upon us to date?
 
Harshaw said:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/buzzfeed-responds-to-mueller-statement-we-stand-by-our-reporting

Their line:



Apparently this is the hill they want to die on, and in so doing, they are necessarily saying that it's the Mueller camp which is wrong about the evidence in the Mueller investigation. This isn't "yeah, but they didn't categorically deny it, so some of it may still be true." This is BuzzFeed saying in no uncertain terms that everything in their story is true, despite the statement from the Special Counsel's office.

As I've said in other threads, the credibility of BuzzFeed is surely on the line here, but so is the credibility of the rest of the news media. If they circle the wagons around BuzzFeed, and it sure looks like that's what they're inclined to do, then they deserve all the shots of "fake news!" aimed at them.

Unless, of course, BuzzFeed is right and it's the Special Counsel's office which is lying.

Which do you find more likely?
Click to expand...

Ben Smith and BF are on trial here, as far as I'm concerned. What other media outlets have picked the story up and vouched for it? Where do you get "the credibility of the rest of the news media", which includes pjmedia, Fox and all of Trump's other pals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom