[#NoCollusion] Should Trump go after the media and Democrats?

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

biff17 said: ↑

Gonna keep up that shtick huh?

Sad
Click to expand...

sure, why not?

No Worries · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Mr. Davis is a co-founder of the Federalist.
Click to expand...

Naturally.

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

No Worries said: ↑

Naturally.
Click to expand...

biff17 · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

for the record, I agree with the argument in this WSJ opinion piece: this was a catastrophic media failure. @biff17 @NewRoxFan @No Worries @FranchiseBlade

And contra @B-Bob who in another thread asked (and this is a very, very good question), "what else would you expect the media to have done?" To which I would reply and argue that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "reporting" the news and . . . well, whatever this was: hyping the news? spinning the news? faking the news? fueling the derangement syndrome?

but I digress. full text altruistically provided for the paywall-impaired:

A Catastrophic Media Failure
America’s blue-chip journalists botched the Russia story from its birth to its final breath Sunday.
By
Sean Davis
March 25, 2019 7:10 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, but questions still abound. Not about collusion, Russian interference or obstruction of justice, but about the leading lights of journalism who managed to get the story so wrong, and for so long.

It wasn’t merely an error here or there. America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday—and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” A 2017 Time magazine cover depicted the White House getting a “makeover” to transform it into the Kremlin.

All based on a theory—that the president of the United States was a Russian asset—produced by a retired foreign spy whose work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An unbiased observer would have taken the theory’s partisan provenance as a red flag, but most political journalists saw nothing but green lights. No unverified rumor was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print. From CNN to the Times and the Post, from esteemed and experienced reporters to opinion writers and bloggers, everyone wanted a share of the Trump-treason beat. What good is the 21st-century Watergate if you don’t at least make an effort to cast yourself as the fearless journalist risking it all who got that one big tip that brought down a president?

Not only did the press fail to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency; it provided voluminous evidence for his repeated charge of “fake news.”

Take CNN. The network reported in December 2017 that Donald Trump Jr. received special email access to stolen documents before their public release by WikiLeaks—an accusation that, if true, could have proved the president’s inner circle was colluding with Russian hackers intent on taking down Mrs. Clinton. But it turned out “the most trusted name in news” misreported the dates on the unsolicited emails to the president’s son. They had been sent to him days afterWikiLeaks had published the pilfered documents. CNN still hasn’t explained why it failed to do basic due diligence on such an important story.

Another CNN foul-up came in June 2017, the month after President Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey had assured him three times that he wasn’t under FBI investigation. The network reported Mr. Comey would directly refute the president’s claim under oath. In reality, Mr. Comey’s own memos explicitly confirmed Mr. Trump’s statement.

A December 2016 Washington Post story “incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid,” as a later editor’s note acknowledged. “Authorities say there is no indication of that so far.” Slate falsely claimed in October 2016 that Mr. Trump’s computers were secretly sharing information with a Russian bank as part of a scheme to avoid detection.

Each new claim, true or not, became fodder for political pundits. Sure, there may be no actual smoking gun or verified information or anything even approximating evidence, but if you take all the disparate pieces and put them on the same corkboard, stand back at just the right distance, and squint really hard, you can almost make out a barrel and a plume of smoke.

Enter Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, author of the classic 2003 article “Why I Hate George W. Bush.” (“I hate the way he walks. . . . I hate the way he talks. . . . I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.”) Last July, before Mr. Trump met Mr. Putin in Helsinki, Mr. Chait penned a nearly 8,000-word piece titled “Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart—or His Handler?” Mr. Chait’s speculation—that “Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987”—was worthy of the late Lyndon LaRouche.

In a January 2019 Twitter thread, meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted that “the failure to connect the dots on Trump-Russia” was one of the “big failures of 2016 campaign coverage.” He added: “There is no sin quite as offensive as challenging conventional wisdom early, and then being proved right.”

Many in Washington and around the country believed Mr. Mueller’s investigation would put the entire issue to rest. If there was collusion, he’d find it. If there was obstruction of justice, he’d prosecute it. Whatever he found, the nation would accept it and move on. “The best thing for our country is that Trump is innocent and that Mueller tells us he’s found nothing,” Garrett Graff of Wired tweeted Thursday, the day before Mr. Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr. “Mueller got everything he wanted,” Mr. Graff wrote Friday. “Never blocked by DOJ in pursuing something he requested. That’s big.”

But the next day, Mr. Graff excoriated Nikki Haley for agreeing: “No, everyone does not have to acknowledge that Trump didn’t interfere with Mueller,” Mr. Graff tweeted Saturday at the former United Nations ambassador. By Monday Mr. Graff was insisting that “a million questions” about Trump-Russia collusion remain.

Likewise, on Monday the irrepressible Mr. Chait insisted the president could still be guilty: “People who want to demonstrate their innocence make displays of cooperation with investigators,” he wrote. “His flamboyant refusal to cooperate deprives Trump of any claim to having been cleared.”

So much for accepting Robert Mueller’s conclusions and recommendations. If your objective is to bring down Mr. Trump, nothing Mr. Mueller or anyone else finds—or fails to find—makes a difference. Mr. Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs. Clinton. From their behavior it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.

Mr. Davis is a co-founder of the Federalist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-catastrophic-media-failure-11553555444?mod=hp_opin_pos1
Click to expand...

So now you gonna tag me with your opinion pieces?

Living rent free.

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

biff17 said: ↑

So now you gonna tag with your opinion pieces?

Living rent free.
Click to expand...

sure, why not?

biff17 · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

sure, why not?
Click to expand...

Sad.

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

biff17 said: ↑

Sad.
Click to expand...

Trump fan?

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

biff17 said: ↑

Sad.
Click to expand...

here you go: Matt Taibbi argues in Rolling Stone that the Mueller investigation outcome has given Trump a "juicy" 2020 re-election campaign issue, and I agree with him. Enjoy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ibbi-russia-investigation-conclusions-813171/

biff17 · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

Trump fan?
Click to expand...

Sad.

NewRoxFan · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

for the record, I agree with the argument in this WSJ opinion piece: this was a catastrophic media failure. @biff17 @NewRoxFan @No Worries @FranchiseBlade

And contra @B-Bob who in another thread asked (and this is a very, very good question), "what else would you expect the media to have done?" To which I would reply and argue that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "reporting" the news and . . . well, whatever this was: hyping the news? spinning the news? faking the news? fueling the derangement syndrome?

but I digress. full text altruistically provided for the paywall-impaired:

A Catastrophic Media Failure
America’s blue-chip journalists botched the Russia story from its birth to its final breath Sunday.
By
Sean Davis
March 25, 2019 7:10 p.m. ET

[deleted]
So much for accepting Robert Mueller’s conclusions and recommendations. If your objective is to bring down Mr. Trump, nothing Mr. Mueller or anyone else finds—or fails to find—makes a difference. Mr. Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs. Clinton. From their behavior it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.

Mr. Davis is a co-founder of the Federalist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-catastrophic-media-failure-11553555444?mod=hp_opin_pos1
Click to expand...

Wow, posting (and agreeing with?) sean davis, editor of the federalist now? Wasn't the federalist blog the one that got in trouble for publishing an opinion piece by Tully Borland, Baptist University philosopher, defending Roy Moore dating teenagers while he was in his 30s, and arguing that such behavior was "not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family."? Wow... your right wing leanings are getting even further out there...

Conservative site gets major blowback after defending Moore dating teens 'to raise a large family'

The Federalist, a conservative news and opinion site, earned scorching pushback on social media Thursday after it published an opinion piece defending Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore dating teenagers while in his 30s on the grounds that it's "not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family." The commentary comes with less than two weeks before a special election between Democrat Doug Jones and Moore, who is accused of sexual misconduct and assault by several women who said he made advances toward them when they were teenagers as young as 14. "Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time," Tully Borland, an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University, wrote for the site. "Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family," Borland adds.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...lowback-after-defending-moore-dating-teens-to

No surprise that the federalist also endorsed moore too. Creeeeepy.

And davis was a political hack for tom coburn. 'Nuff said...

conquistador#11 · Mar 26, 2019

He should. That's what those democratic compadres, Maduro and Putin would do. And he should start by calling Mueller an "ANGRY DEMOCRAT!!!" Speaking of Putin, not only has he provided wheat, choppas to Venezuela. He is now sending some of his best men to Venezuela and we all know what those men love doing, a little chemicals here, a little chemicals there followed by a mysterious death. And trump still wants to sit at the lunch table with him.

dmoneybangbang · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

for the record, I agree with the argument in this WSJ opinion piece: this was a catastrophic media failure. @biff17 @NewRoxFan @No Worries @FranchiseBlade

And contra @B-Bob who in another thread asked (and this is a very, very good question), "what else would you expect the media to have done?" To which I would reply and argue that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "reporting" the news and . . . well, whatever this was: hyping the news? spinning the news? faking the news? fueling the derangement syndrome?

but I digress. full text altruistically provided for the paywall-impaired:

A Catastrophic Media Failure
America’s blue-chip journalists botched the Russia story from its birth to its final breath Sunday.
By
Sean Davis
March 25, 2019 7:10 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, but questions still abound. Not about collusion, Russian interference or obstruction of justice, but about the leading lights of journalism who managed to get the story so wrong, and for so long.

It wasn’t merely an error here or there. America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday—and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it. Last year the New York Times and Washington Post shared a Pulitzer Prize “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” A 2017 Time magazine cover depicted the White House getting a “makeover” to transform it into the Kremlin.

All based on a theory—that the president of the United States was a Russian asset—produced by a retired foreign spy whose work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An unbiased observer would have taken the theory’s partisan provenance as a red flag, but most political journalists saw nothing but green lights. No unverified rumor was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print. From CNN to the Times and the Post, from esteemed and experienced reporters to opinion writers and bloggers, everyone wanted a share of the Trump-treason beat. What good is the 21st-century Watergate if you don’t at least make an effort to cast yourself as the fearless journalist risking it all who got that one big tip that brought down a president?

Not only did the press fail to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency; it provided voluminous evidence for his repeated charge of “fake news.”

Take CNN. The network reported in December 2017 that Donald Trump Jr. received special email access to stolen documents before their public release by WikiLeaks—an accusation that, if true, could have proved the president’s inner circle was colluding with Russian hackers intent on taking down Mrs. Clinton. But it turned out “the most trusted name in news” misreported the dates on the unsolicited emails to the president’s son. They had been sent to him days afterWikiLeaks had published the pilfered documents. CNN still hasn’t explained why it failed to do basic due diligence on such an important story.

Another CNN foul-up came in June 2017, the month after President Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey had assured him three times that he wasn’t under FBI investigation. The network reported Mr. Comey would directly refute the president’s claim under oath. In reality, Mr. Comey’s own memos explicitly confirmed Mr. Trump’s statement.

A December 2016 Washington Post story “incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid,” as a later editor’s note acknowledged. “Authorities say there is no indication of that so far.” Slate falsely claimed in October 2016 that Mr. Trump’s computers were secretly sharing information with a Russian bank as part of a scheme to avoid detection.

Each new claim, true or not, became fodder for political pundits. Sure, there may be no actual smoking gun or verified information or anything even approximating evidence, but if you take all the disparate pieces and put them on the same corkboard, stand back at just the right distance, and squint really hard, you can almost make out a barrel and a plume of smoke.

Enter Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, author of the classic 2003 article “Why I Hate George W. Bush.” (“I hate the way he walks. . . . I hate the way he talks. . . . I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.”) Last July, before Mr. Trump met Mr. Putin in Helsinki, Mr. Chait penned a nearly 8,000-word piece titled “Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart—or His Handler?” Mr. Chait’s speculation—that “Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987”—was worthy of the late Lyndon LaRouche.

In a January 2019 Twitter thread, meanwhile, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asserted that “the failure to connect the dots on Trump-Russia” was one of the “big failures of 2016 campaign coverage.” He added: “There is no sin quite as offensive as challenging conventional wisdom early, and then being proved right.”

Many in Washington and around the country believed Mr. Mueller’s investigation would put the entire issue to rest. If there was collusion, he’d find it. If there was obstruction of justice, he’d prosecute it. Whatever he found, the nation would accept it and move on. “The best thing for our country is that Trump is innocent and that Mueller tells us he’s found nothing,” Garrett Graff of Wired tweeted Thursday, the day before Mr. Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr. “Mueller got everything he wanted,” Mr. Graff wrote Friday. “Never blocked by DOJ in pursuing something he requested. That’s big.”

But the next day, Mr. Graff excoriated Nikki Haley for agreeing: “No, everyone does not have to acknowledge that Trump didn’t interfere with Mueller,” Mr. Graff tweeted Saturday at the former United Nations ambassador. By Monday Mr. Graff was insisting that “a million questions” about Trump-Russia collusion remain.

Likewise, on Monday the irrepressible Mr. Chait insisted the president could still be guilty: “People who want to demonstrate their innocence make displays of cooperation with investigators,” he wrote. “His flamboyant refusal to cooperate deprives Trump of any claim to having been cleared.”

So much for accepting Robert Mueller’s conclusions and recommendations. If your objective is to bring down Mr. Trump, nothing Mr. Mueller or anyone else finds—or fails to find—makes a difference. Mr. Trump didn’t collude with Russia, but he did defeat Mrs. Clinton. From their behavior it is evident that many in the media view that as sufficient to establish his guilt. For them, the Trump-Russia investigation was never about protecting democracy or securing elections—never mind telling the truth, which is supposed to be their job.

Mr. Davis is a co-founder of the Federalist.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-catastrophic-media-failure-11553555444?mod=hp_opin_pos1
Click to expand...

Another opinion piece by conservatives.... can we apply the same standard to how your side reported Benghazi?

It’s hilarious how both sides do the exact same thing.

dmoneybangbang · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

sure, why not?
Click to expand...

Lol! What else do you have going on besides this forum? That’s an impressive post count champ!

dmoneybangbang · Mar 26, 2019

biff17 said: ↑

So now you gonna tag me with your opinion pieces?

Living rent free.
Click to expand...

Pretty pathetic huh?

Os Trigonum · Mar 26, 2019

Glenn Greenwald claims that MSNBC banned him for breaking with the collusion narrative. If true, I disagree with MSNBC's acting this way toward Greenwald. Excerpt:

Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald said Monday night that he was banned from appearing on MSNBC due his skepticism regarding the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to sway the 2016 election, which was championed by much of the network’s on-air talent for the past two years.

“Let me just say, [MSNBC] should have their top host on primetime go before the cameras and hang their head in shame and apologize for lying to people for three straight years, exploiting their fears to great profit,” Greenwald told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. “These are people who were on the verge of losing their jobs. The whole network was about to collapse. This whole scam saved them. Not only did they constantly feed people for three straight years total disinformation, they did it on purpose, Tucker.”

“There was a whole slew, not just me, of left-wing journalists with very high journalistic credentials, far more than anyone on that network, like Matt Taibbi and Jeremy Scahill and many others, including myself, who were banned from the network because they wanted their audience not to know that anybody was questioning or expressing skepticism about the lies and the scam they were selling because it was so profitable,” he continued.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...ed-him-for-breaking-with-collusion-narrative/

TheresTheDagger · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

here you go: Matt Taibbi argues in Rolling Stone that the Mueller investigation outcome has given Trump a "juicy" 2020 re-election campaign issue, and I agree with him. Enjoy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ibbi-russia-investigation-conclusions-813171/
Click to expand...

Good article. Amazing for Rolling Stone.

FranchiseBlade · Mar 26, 2019

Os Trigonum said: ↑

here you go: Matt Taibbi argues in Rolling Stone that the Mueller investigation outcome has given Trump a "juicy" 2020 re-election campaign issue, and I agree with him. Enjoy.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ibbi-russia-investigation-conclusions-813171/
Click to expand...

LOL! Shocking that you should agree with something that would support Trump. My mind has been blown. After posting opinion after opinion going after Democrats and supporting Trump, the fact that you agree with another one is amazing.

jcf · Mar 26, 2019

FranchiseBlade said: ↑

Discussing the posting of editorials as opposed to articles without an implicit bias isn't really about you personally, is it? It's about posting material for the debate and discussion of issues.
Click to expand...

Some would question whether there are many articles without an implicit bias of one form or another.

FranchiseBlade · Mar 26, 2019

jcf said: ↑

Some would question whether there are many articles without an implicit bias of one form or another.
Click to expand...

Let them argue. That's the point it's arguable. But opinion articles are not arguable. It is definite. And when that is 90% of what someone posts but they pretend to not agree with all of them even though they post opinion articles that heavily favor one side, then it might be time for that person to drop the charade that nobody is buying.

jcf · Mar 26, 2019

FranchiseBlade said: ↑

Let them argue. That's the point it's arguable. But opinion articles are not arguable. It is definite. And when that is 90% of what someone posts but they pretend to not agree with all of them even though they post opinion articles that heavily favor one side, then it might be time for that person to drop the charade that nobody is buying.
Click to expand...

If one steps back and reads this thread (assuming no one is really offended), it is incredibly entertaining. A number of posters brought their A game. Heck of a lot better than the game I was watching.

Forums

[#NoCollusion] Should Trump go after the media and Democrats?

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

No Worries Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

biff17 Member

NewRoxFan Member

conquistador#11 Member

dmoneybangbang Member

dmoneybangbang Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

TheresTheDagger Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

jcf Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

jcf Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

[#NoCollusion] Should Trump go after the media and Democrats?

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

No Worries Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

biff17 Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

biff17 Member

NewRoxFan Member

conquistador#11 Member

dmoneybangbang Member

dmoneybangbang Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Os Trigonum Member Supporting Member

TheresTheDagger Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

jcf Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

jcf Member

Share This Page

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

Os Trigonum Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member