• 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!

[W:249]CNN Caught Lying Again. No Surprise Here

Condor060 said:
So amazing. CNN runs another fictional story on something that never happened and it needs to be explained to you? Really?
Click to expand...

I see you have nothing.

Yes, it needs to be explained to me, because I DO NOT SEE WHERE IT IS FAKE.

You made a claim, what looks like a made up claim (fake news in other words), and you have NOTHING (we knew this before, didn't we?) to actually show this is the case.

And your tactic to save face is to try and attack me because you can't even defend your own OP. Wow.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I see you have nothing.

Yes, it needs to be explained to me, because I DO NOT SEE WHERE IT IS FAKE.

You made a claim, what looks like a made up claim (fake news in other words), and you have NOTHING (we knew this before, didn't we?) to actually show this is the case.

And your tactic to save face is to try and attack me because you can't even defend your own OP. Wow.
Click to expand...

Just wow.

The CIA slammed what it called CNN's "misguided" and "simply false" reporting, after the cable channel's chief national security correspondent authored a hole-filled piece claiming that the CIA had pulled a high-level spy out of Russia because President Trump had repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.

But you keep kneeling at the altar of CNN. Thats what we want you to do.
 
Condor060 said:
Just wow.

The CIA slammed what it called CNN's "misguided" and "simply false" reporting, after the cable channel's chief national security correspondent authored a hole-filled piece claiming that the CIA had pulled a high-level spy out of Russia because President Trump had repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.

But you keep kneeling at the altar of CNN. Thats what we want you to do.
Click to expand...

Right, the CIA is the definition of honesty, right?

When the CIA says "you're saying something wrong", you know that you're wrong. Clearly they didn't allow Bush to go to war in Iraq by making **** up, did they? Iran Contra Affair, nope, didn't happen.


The simple fact is, when you're dealing with things that involve information that people can't possibly have access to, you can literally say whatever you like. Intelligence services us this trick all the time.

Also, when they say it was "misguided", this means "we think they shouldn't have done this", rather than it was fake.

"Bramwell continued: "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.""

They're literally saying that criticizing the US President's handling of intelligence is "misguided".

The "simply false" part comes from this:

""CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement."

Which sounds like complete and utter nonsense. This is the CIA pretending that it doesn't make knee jerk reactions ever, that it sits for hours thinking about every single decision. They're not saying what CNN said is "simply false", they're saying the "narrative" is "simply false". Word play, in other words.

Try this from Fox News CIA slams CNN'''s '''misguided''' and '''simply false''' reporting on alleged CIA spy'''s extraction from Kremlin | Fox News

""Former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, "

No "public evidence" means there might be private evidence.

Nothing the CIA said actually states that anything CNN said is false. There's a Times report, which could easily be a "hey, we're in **** and we need help, we'll keep giving you info, as long as you publish this article we need publishing"

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING you have said leads me to think CNN were lying. They might have been. However your argument doesn't show this in the slightest.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Right, the CIA is the definition of honesty, right?

When the CIA says "you're saying something wrong", you know that you're wrong. Clearly they didn't allow Bush to go to war in Iraq by making **** up, did they? Iran Contra Affair, nope, didn't happen.


The simple fact is, when you're dealing with things that involve information that people can't possibly have access to, you can literally say whatever you like. Intelligence services us this trick all the time.

Also, when they say it was "misguided", this means "we think they shouldn't have done this", rather than it was fake.

"Bramwell continued: "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.""

They're literally saying that criticizing the US President's handling of intelligence is "misguided".

The "simply false" part comes from this:

""CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement."

Which sounds like complete and utter nonsense. This is the CIA pretending that it doesn't make knee jerk reactions ever, that it sits for hours thinking about every single decision. They're not saying what CNN said is "simply false", they're saying the "narrative" is "simply false". Word play, in other words.

Try this from Fox News CIA slams CNN'''s '''misguided''' and '''simply false''' reporting on alleged CIA spy'''s extraction from Kremlin | Fox News

""Former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, "

No "public evidence" means there might be private evidence.

Nothing the CIA said actually states that anything CNN said is false. There's a Times report, which could easily be a "hey, we're in **** and we need help, we'll keep giving you info, as long as you publish this article we need publishing"

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING you have said leads me to think CNN were lying. They might have been. However your argument doesn't show this in the slightest.
Click to expand...
While i do agree with you that the CIAs word should not be taken on face value, neither should CNNs. They are making an allegation and the onus is on them to back it up. The CIA challenged their assertions and they are unable to back them up. Maybe its accurate, maybe its not, maybe its a little of both, but its irresponsible of them to publish anything they can not provide adequate sourcing for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
While i do agree with you that the CIAs word should not be taken on face value, neither should CNNs. They are making an allegation and the onus is on them to back it up. The CIA challenged their assertions and they are unable to back them up. Maybe its accurate, maybe its not, maybe its a little of both, but its irresponsible of them to publish anything they can not provide adequate sourcing for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, CNN's word should not be taken at face value. At the same time it should not be declared "fake news" simply because it's inconvenient either.

The problem in such cases is that backing something up of this nature is going to be hard.

What are the sources in this case?

"multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge told CNN."

"A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy."

"Those concerns were described to CNN by five sources who served in the Trump administration, intelligence agencies and Congress."

It won't discuss who the sources are, because quite frankly they work for Trump and they would get fired immediately if found out. However, I would bet that the management of CNN are confident enough in these sources.

Certainly what the CIA is saying is "White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said, "CNN's reporting is not only incorrect, it has the potential to put lives in danger.""

Well, incorrect in what way? There might be inaccuracies, rather like "fake news" simply because people are piecing things together. However, they're saying CNN is putting people's lives in danger. How's that? Unless this information is true. If it's all false, why would the White House say this?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
No, CNN's word should not be taken at face value. At the same time it should not be declared "fake news" simply because it's inconvenient either.

The problem in such cases is that backing something up of this nature is going to be hard.

What are the sources in this case?

"multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge told CNN."

"A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy."

"Those concerns were described to CNN by five sources who served in the Trump administration, intelligence agencies and Congress."

It won't discuss who the sources are, because quite frankly they work for Trump and they would get fired immediately if found out. However, I would bet that the management of CNN are confident enough in these sources.

Certainly what the CIA is saying is "White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said, "CNN's reporting is not only incorrect, it has the potential to put lives in danger.""

Well, incorrect in what way? There might be inaccuracies, rather like "fake news" simply because people are piecing things together. However, they're saying CNN is putting people's lives in danger. How's that? Unless this information is true. If it's all false, why would the White House say this?
Click to expand...
Why should we take CNNs word for anything? If they dont have people on the record they should not run with it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Why should we take CNNs word for anything? If they dont have people on the record they should not run with it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, why should you take anyone's word for anything?


Let's look at the situation of who we can take their word.

The White House - lies come out of there about every ten minutes.

The CIA - Complete and utter liars

CNN - The customers don't want to be reading things that they automatically assume are fake. They can be sued, unlike the WH and CIA for fake things said.

Who would you trust the most?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, why should you take anyone's word for anything?


Let's look at the situation of who we can take their word.

The White House - lies come out of there about every ten minutes.

The CIA - Complete and utter liars

CNN - The customers don't want to be reading things that they automatically assume are fake. They can be sued, unlike the WH and CIA for fake things said.

Who would you trust the most?
Click to expand...
Cnn has been wrong on multiole occassions

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Cnn has been wrong on multiole occassions

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, CNN has been wrong on multiple occasions. So have you, so have I.

And when they're wrong what happens? They get called out on it. They often have to print a retraction.

Trump doesn't just get it wrong, he out right fakes it. He doesn't bother with sources, he doesn't bother with accuracy. He doesn't care.

The CIA, well... the US govt actually showed what the CIA is willing to do.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, CNN has been wrong on multiple occasions. So have you, so have I.

And when they're wrong what happens? They get called out on it. They often have to print a retraction.

Trump doesn't just get it wrong, he out right fakes it. He doesn't bother with sources, he doesn't bother with accuracy. He doesn't care.

The CIA, well... the US govt actually showed what the CIA is willing to do.
Click to expand...
Apparently CNN does not bother with those things either. Im not gonna tell you whether or not to trust unverified things coming from them. Its not my place to tell you who toor not to trust but dont try to tell me i have to trust them just because you do. I trust what i can verify. When any of them hide behind unnamed/anonymous sources, secret undisclosed documents, or one persons word over another, i treat them with skeptism. None of them have enough credibility to give them my blind trust. They all have agendas and none of them are above lying to fulfill their agenda.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Apparently CNN does not bother with those things either. Im not gonna tell you whether or not to trust unverified things coming from them. Its not my place to tell you who toor not to trust but dont try to tell me i have to trust them just because you do. I trust what i can verify. When any of them hide behind unnamed/anonymous sources, secret undisclosed documents, or one persons word over another, i treat them with skeptism. None of them have enough credibility to give them my blind trust. They all have agendas and none of them are above lying to fulfill their agenda.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Apparently"??? Sounds like you don't know, you're just making something up. Which would be rather hypocritical.

I'm not telling you have to trust them. I'm providing information about how trustworthy I think CNN is in comparison with the CIA and the White House.

Yes, trust what you can verify, which is almost NOTHING. Literally we could go through the news today, and find that almost all of it is based on what other people say.

The problem is most people don't bother. Then complain when they think they're being lied to, but usually it's because they don't understand certain words (or choose to ignore them).

Yes, everyone has agendas. Bias is inherent within the media, it's actually impossible not to have bias. However, again, I'd trust CNN far more than Trump and the CIA.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Right, the CIA is the definition of honesty, right?

When the CIA says "you're saying something wrong", you know that you're wrong. Clearly they didn't allow Bush to go to war in Iraq by making **** up, did they? Iran Contra Affair, nope, didn't happen.


The simple fact is, when you're dealing with things that involve information that people can't possibly have access to, you can literally say whatever you like. Intelligence services us this trick all the time.

Also, when they say it was "misguided", this means "we think they shouldn't have done this", rather than it was fake.

"Bramwell continued: "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.""

They're literally saying that criticizing the US President's handling of intelligence is "misguided".

The "simply false" part comes from this:

""CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement."

Which sounds like complete and utter nonsense. This is the CIA pretending that it doesn't make knee jerk reactions ever, that it sits for hours thinking about every single decision. They're not saying what CNN said is "simply false", they're saying the "narrative" is "simply false". Word play, in other words.

Try this from Fox News CIA slams CNN'''s '''misguided''' and '''simply false''' reporting on alleged CIA spy'''s extraction from Kremlin | Fox News

""Former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, "

No "public evidence" means there might be private evidence.

Nothing the CIA said actually states that anything CNN said is false. There's a Times report, which could easily be a "hey, we're in **** and we need help, we'll keep giving you info, as long as you publish this article we need publishing"

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING you have said leads me to think CNN were lying. They might have been. However your argument doesn't show this in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Thats right, You keep that CNN flag flying. You're right on target. Just where we want you to be.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, why should you take anyone's word for anything?

Let's look at the situation of who we can take their word.
The White House - lies come out of there about every ten minutes.
The CIA - Complete and utter liars
CNN - The customers don't want to be reading things that they automatically assume are fake. They can be sued, unlike the WH and CIA for fake things said.
Who would you trust the most?
Click to expand...
CIA, no question in this particular case. CNN is motivated by bad ratings to fabricate and embroider. CIA is calling them on it.

CNN is being sued. Let me know when something happens. It's like suing big tobacco and the breakthrough case hasn't happened yet.
 
Condor060 said:
Thats right, You keep that CNN flag flying. You're right on target. Just where we want you to be.
Click to expand...

Are you ACTUALLY reading what I'm writing?

You seem to think I'm flying the flag for CNN. I'm not. But it takes someone to READ WHAT I WRITE to realize WHAT I'M WRITING.
 
Jay59 said:
CIA, no question in this particular case. CNN is motivated by bad ratings to fabricate and embroider. CIA is calling them on it.

CNN is being sued. Let me know when something happens. It's like suing big tobacco and the breakthrough case hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

The CNN is relying on ratings.

What is the CIA doing? Perhaps it's trying to cover up a **** up, like they never have **** ups. Also, Trump's in charge and they're also supposed to do what the President says, and not go against him. And Trump is a notorious liar. So...... why wouldn't the CIA lie?

Yes, CNN might not have accurate information in its report. Or it might do.

The point being made here is that someone comes along and say "oh, that inconvenient, must be fake news" and because they've been caught a few times writing things that aren't true, now all of a sudden all the hillbillies and rednecks are like "yeah, must be fake news".

Whereas Trump lies, and it's so obvious, and they believe everything.

You see the problem here? This isn't objective thinking. This is believing and nothing else.
 
Condor060 said:
CNN Reports



Exclusive: US extracted top spy from inside Russia in 2017 - CNNPolitics

Yet another anonymous, Insider, and a person directly involved in the discussions reported by CNN is AGAIN, FAKE NEWS.

The CIA slams CNN about their Fake News.



New York Times reported that former Intelligence Officals stated there was no evidence that Trump directly endangered the source and other current American Officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency's sources alone was the impetus for the extraction.
Click to expand...

I think part of the frustration is that we still consider CNN to be a news outlet. It's propaganda for a political party, and should no longer be referred to, or licensed as, a news outlet. Supporting one political party over another is not "news".
 
Frigidweirdo said:
No, CNN's word should not be taken at face value. At the same time it should not be declared "fake news" simply because it's inconvenient either.
Click to expand...

Well, if they can't back it up, and what they say is wrong...

It is fake!
 
trouble13 said:
Why should we take CNNs word for anything? If they dont have people on the record they should not run with it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you have a single reliable source that has proven accurate over time, in the aftermath, then it's safe to assume they are correct. However... "multiple unnamed source..." Does does sound wrong.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The CNN is relying on ratings.

What is the CIA doing? Perhaps it's trying to cover up a **** up, like they never have **** ups. Also, Trump's in charge and they're also supposed to do what the President says, and not go against him. And Trump is a notorious liar. So...... why wouldn't the CIA lie?

Yes, CNN might not have accurate information in its report. Or it might do.

The point being made here is that someone comes along and say "oh, that inconvenient, must be fake news" and because they've been caught a few times writing things that aren't true, now all of a sudden all the hillbillies and rednecks are like "yeah, must be fake news".

Whereas Trump lies, and it's so obvious, and they believe everything.

You see the problem here? This isn't objective thinking. This is believing and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Guesses are not newsworthy.
 
Rickeroo said:
I think part of the frustration is that we still consider CNN to be a news outlet. It's propaganda for a political party, and should no longer be referred to, or licensed as, a news outlet. Supporting one political party over another is not "news".
Click to expand...

It's been like that since their inception. Just more obvious now.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The CNN is relying on ratings.
Click to expand...
Is that a question or a statement?

What is the CIA doing? Perhaps it's trying to cover up a **** up, like they never have **** ups. Also, Trump's in charge and they're also supposed to do what the President says, and not go against him. And Trump is a notorious liar. So...... why wouldn't the CIA lie?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Perhaps, Perhaps. Got enough of those?

What the CIA's ulterior motives are is interesting to speculate about. This is an occasion where they might serve several motives by telling the truth. CNN is a notorious liar, particularly if it makes Trump look bad.

Yes, CNN might not have accurate information in its report. Or it might do.
Click to expand...
:eek:

The point being made here is that someone comes along and say "oh, that inconvenient, must be fake news" and because they've been caught a few times writing things that aren't true, now all of a sudden all the hillbillies and rednecks are like "yeah, must be fake news".
Click to expand...
The point here is that CNN was caught running an unsubstantiated story--again.

Whereas Trump lies, and it's so obvious, and they believe everything.
Click to expand...
Not Trump this time.

You see the problem here? This isn't objective thinking. This is believing and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I could not have said it better myself. You believe everything bad about Trump is true. It's a leap of faith you made long ago.

Frigidweirdo said:
Then EVERYTHING Trump says is fake.
Click to expand...
An act of faith.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
If you have a single reliable source that has proven accurate over time, in the aftermath, then it's safe to assume they are correct. However... "multiple unnamed source..." Does does sound wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly, these people have deystroyed their own credibility with their slip shod reporting.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom