#goldengate

[Thomas]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

Do you feel it was appropriate for Buzzfeed, or another organization, to release the dossier as news?

I would have preferred the salacious details being left out until they could be fact checked. Say to the effect that there is a report containing highly explicit but unverified material that has been reviewed by intelligence agencies. Instead we have a situation where public trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low, deservedly so, and this only serves to deteriorate this further. I mean I look at NBC News on my phone this morning and the fourth article is literal click-bait link from a "sponsor" based on a location lookup of my home internet address. I'm to the point of giving up completely that I can find legitimate news. This to many people seems like at best the media being opportunist and at worst "the mainstream media" attacking Trump. Perhaps "All the President's Men" should be required viewing in high school?

[Make Angels Great Again]

Apparently a fair sized news org publishing totally unverified (and likely false according to everybody who looks at it) stories with stuff as stupid as the pres-elect enjoying golden showers DOESN'T go beyond "someone publishing something he doesn't like".

 

That's some crazy bias.

[red321]

13 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I would have preferred the salacious details being left out until they could be fact checked. Say to the effect that there is a report containing highly explicit but unverified material that has been reviewed by intelligence agencies. Instead we have a situation where public trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low, deservedly so, and this only serves to deteriorate this further. I mean I look at NBC News on my phone this morning and the fourth article is literal click-bait link from a "sponsor" based on a location lookup of my home internet address. I'm to the point of giving up completely that I can find legitimate news. This to many people seems like at best the media being opportunist and at worst "the mainstream media" attacking Trump. Perhaps "All the President's Men" should be required viewing in high school?

Isnt' that what CNN did in essence...but was lambasted for "fake news" by the PE(e)? In Buzzfeed's case though, they weren't reporting this is what Donald Trump did, but rather this is the intelligence report that is being reviewed by people in government. I'm not sure how this would deteriorate faith in the media...when in this rare instance they did their job.

In the case of All the President's Men, they were the ones writing the story, they were the ones investigating specific claims against the administration. That was not what Buzzfeed was reporting, they weren't making specific claims against the PE(e).

 

[Thomas]

7 minutes ago, red321 said:

Isnt' that what CNN did in essence...but was lambasted for "fake news" by the PE(e)? In Buzzfeed's case though, they weren't reporting this is what Donald Trump did, but rather this is the intelligence report that is being reviewed by people in government. I'm not sure how this would deteriorate faith in the media...when in this rare instance they did their job.

In the case of All the President's Men, they were the ones writing the story, they were the ones investigating specific claims against the administration. That was not what Buzzfeed was reporting, they weren't making specific claims against the PE(e).

 

You asked me about Buzzfeed not CNN. Releasing the content as they did was opening Pandora's box overwhelming every other media outlet covering the story. Giving the details and prefacing it that what is being investigate isn't verified isn't enough and doesn't meet any journalistic threshold above tabloid. Trump's campaign strategy certainly showed that it only takes putting a name next to an allegation to make it stick, even if it's proven untrue within 10 minutes.  The story overshadowed everything else and allowed Trump to go on the attack with generalities. He's covered in slime and nothing sticks to him. The people that hate him will likely believe these allegations regardless of future investigation. And the anger they unleash seems to be playing into his hands. The right will not believe the allegations regardless, confirm their bias by seeing the left frothing at the mouth, and just see this as the media and the left playing dirty tricks allowing Trump to attack and trivialize an already damaged 4th pillar.

[red321]

14 minutes ago, Thomas said:

You asked me about Buzzfeed not CNN. Releasing the content as they did was opening Pandora's box overwhelming every other media outlet covering the story. Giving the details and prefacing it that what is being investigate isn't verified isn't enough and doesn't meet any journalistic threshold above tabloid. Trump's campaign strategy certainly showed that it only takes putting a name next to an allegation to make it stick, even if it's proven untrue within 10 minutes.  The story overshadowed everything else and allowed Trump to go on the attack with generalities. He's covered in slime and nothing sticks to him. The people that hate him will likely believe these allegations regardless of future investigation. And the anger they unleash seems to be playing into his hands. The right will not believe the allegations regardless, confirm their bias by seeing the left frothing at the mouth, and just see this as the media and the left playing dirty tricks allowing Trump to attack and trivialize an already damaged 4th pillar.

You are right, I did not ask you about CNN, but rather pointed out that I felt what CNN reported was similar in nature to what you suggested. Do you feel what CNN reported was acceptable?

How Trump supporters, or those on the left, react doesn't really impact whether or not from a news perspective was it correct to publish. Trump is going to go on the attack against any perceived slight (see Streep, Merryl or CNN). The left is going to believe he is a pee swallowing fascist. That really has no bearing on whether or not the dossier should be considered news, a document that was being actively discussed in Washington by journalists, intelligence agents, government officials, etc. for weeks (if not longer).

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, red321 said:

Isnt' that what CNN did in essence...but was lambasted for "fake news" by the PE(e)? In Buzzfeed's case though, they weren't reporting this is what Donald Trump did, but rather this is the intelligence report that is being reviewed by people in government. I'm not sure how this would deteriorate faith in the media...when in this rare instance they did their job.

In the case of All the President's Men, they were the ones writing the story, they were the ones investigating specific claims against the administration. That was not what Buzzfeed was reporting, they weren't making specific claims against the PE(e).

 

This was tabloid information, a legitimate news source would ignore it. 

[Glen]

2 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Apparently a fair sized news org publishing totally unverified (and likely false according to everybody who looks at it) stories with stuff as stupid as the pres-elect enjoying golden showers DOESN'T go beyond "someone publishing something he doesn't like".

 

That's some crazy bias.

I know I always go to Buzzfeed for serious journalism. 

Or were you talking about Fox News?

[red321]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This was tabloid information, a legitimate news source would ignore it. 

It's apparently "legitimate" enough for the intelligence community, FBI, and government officials to discuss and be included as supporting material in a briefing to the president and president elect.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, red321 said:

It's apparently "legitimate" enough for the intelligence community, FBI, and government officials to discuss and be included as supporting material in a briefing to the president and president elect.

Buzzfeed pulled it out of Obama's oval trash bin.

[Lhalo]

7 minutes ago, red321 said:

It's apparently "legitimate" enough for the intelligence community, FBI, and government officials to discuss and be included as supporting material in a briefing to the president and president elect.

Shows you what a sad state of affairs our intelligence community is in. 

[Thomas]

26 minutes ago, red321 said:

It's apparently "legitimate" enough for the intelligence community, FBI, and government officials to discuss and be included as supporting material in a briefing to the president and president elect.

The same FBI who recorded MLK Jr. fucking outside of marriage in the next room over?

[Tank]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

The same FBI who recorded MLK Jr. fucking outside of marriage in the next room over?

the same fbi that used to be led by a cross-dressing megalomaniac.

[red321]

yes, the same FBI that is being investigated for their role in the 2016 elections (shit, come on guys...you could at least come up with something that occurred in the last 30 years)

[Thomas]

7 minutes ago, red321 said:

yes, the same FBI that is being investigated for their role in the 2016 elections (shit, come on guys...you could at least come up with something that occurred in the last 30 years)

You went for the logic fallacy of appealing to authority. I just followed it to its inevitable conclusion. It also tied in with Lawrence's statement of the state intelligence is in now as in this isn't anything exactly new. And you're arguing that a governmental agency, the FBI no less, might be corrupted  and abusing their power? With a Libertarian?

Humanity changes at a glacial pace. The more things change, the more they stay the same. And honestly it feels like what I imagine the 1960s would have. But when you release unverified material like this you are just asking for trouble. Trouble the media as a whole can not afford. Because it really feels like there are forces in this country that want to neutralize the media. And this is just another snowflake in the avalanche.

[red321]

No, I went with the logic that this is a document being discussed about our president elect, by various entities in the government as well as outside the government, and as citizens we should be privy to those types of discussions.

I would certainly agree that there are forces that want to neutralize the media

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

No, I went with the logic that this is a document being discussed about our president elect, by various entities in the government as well as outside the government, and as citizens we should be privy to those types of discussions.

Oh. Wow... Are you suggesting that the media should have gone into detail on every unsubstantiated report about the current POTUS during his 8 years?!?!

[red321]

6 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Oh. Wow... Are you suggesting that the media should have gone into detail on every unsubstantiated report about the current POTUS during his 8 years?!?!

Have you not watched Fox News?

[Thomas]

Just now, red321 said:

Have you not watched Fox News?

I had just assumed they made up their own.

[Lou]

On January 10, 2017 at 6:36 PM, red321 said:

Because really, as outlandish as it sounds, in the back of your mind you're thinking...yeah, I could see that

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-denies-that-he-hired-russian-hookers-for-g-1791049695

 

On January 10, 2017 at 6:50 PM, the dude abides said:

I don't doubt it.

the guy is a sexual deviant.

 

On January 10, 2017 at 8:17 PM, RallyMo said:

Amazing.

The excuses that will be made for this are going to be outstanding.

 

On January 10, 2017 at 8:17 PM, InsideThePark said:

How will the GOPee respond?

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

On November 18, 2016 at 8:28 AM, red321 said:

Rather than just post shit you find on twitter...do a basic fact check. Took me 30 seconds to figure out that was bullshit. 

 

[Lhalo]

Haha

[Glen]

I'll admit I'm a bit surprised I wasn't in Lou's post.

Whew.

[Ordos]

Anyone with basic cognitive skills knew it was bullshit. Similarly, anyone with said skills knew the birther argument was just as ridiculous. Too bad there aren't enough people that are actually capable of gathering information, fact checking, and making educated choices after. Much easier to follow sound bites and make choices from those.

[Spirit]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

Well done, sir. 

 

 

 

[Thomas]

13 minutes ago, calscuf said:

I don't think the consensus is that President Grab Em By The Pussy couldn't possibly have had two whores pee on each other.

It does sound plausible.

It's plausible for half of the members of Angelswin. (The other half couldn't possibly afford that shit)

[Spirit]

Yeah ... suck it, people with crappy per diems!