What would it take?

[MTK]

^ What's the source on that?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by MTK

^ What's the source on that?

I think both pieces are off wiki

Here a good example about this Russian spy ship:

FACT CHECK: Has a Russian Spy Ship Been Spotted Near the East Coast of the United States?

A quick search of news stories makes it clear that sightings of similar Russian vessels happen with some regularity. In July 2016, the U.S. Navy reported seeing a spy ship in international waters off the Hawaiian coast. In January 2015, the Viktor Leonov was seen docked in Havana on the eve of a historic visit by senior U.S. delegates to Cuba.

Naveed Jamali, a former intelligence operative who worked undercover for the FBI against Russian intelligence, told us the sighting isn’t surprising because it’s nothing new, and in the minds of the Russians, the U.S. is an adversary:


I spent four years working against the Russians undercover and I can say that for the Russians, the Cold War never ended and the U.S. is still their main adversary. They see that hurting the United States is in their national interest. They can’t compete with us militarily and economically and it’s easier for them to bring us down than for them to build up those capabilities, so in essence, weakening the U.S. by extension strengthens Russia. They want to be a world power again, so showing that they can reach out and touch us is a way of making that point.


All this stuff is a non story...this ship and others were in international waters during the Obama administration.

[Alvin Walton]

I laugh every time one of these rags talks about spy ship hype and bomber intercept hype.
Its been going on since WW II ended.
And we have been doing the same to them.
Its just page filler because they cant make up enough fake news that day.
Or maybe Wolf Blitzer is on vacation.

[JoeRedskin]

A recent story by CNN included the following facts all of which I will accept as true. In brackets, I will also include things I consider salient facts which were known at the time of CNN's story that were not included. After listing the story's reported and omitted facts, I will post the headline verbatim along with the opening and closing sentences of the article. You decide for yourself if CNN's characterization was misleading with an anti-Trump bias:

- During Presidential campaigns, it is common for candidates' staffs to have communications with foreign officials.

- During the past campaign, “high level” Trump staffers had a higher frequency of contact with Russian officials and “other Russian nationals known to US intelligence” than is normal for such staffers.

- [Only three staffers are implicated – Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone - are under investigation as a result of these contacts.] Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn

- [The legal standard for opening such investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.] NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...ion.html?_r=0]

- [It is unclear which Russian officials were being monitored by the intelligence community, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers.] Same NYT article as above.

- [Because the Russian government will imbed its operatives in its own and neighboring countries business organizations, it is not known if the staffers even realized they were talking to suspected Russian operatives.][From a Bloomberg report article, cannot find the link]

- The frequency of the contacts and the closeness of the individuals to Trump created a concern within the intelligence community.

- Shortly after the election, both Obama and Trump were notified of the communications and the concerns raised by the frequency and closeness to Trump.

- The nature and intent of the conversations was not revealed to the author of the CNN reporter.

- Intelligence investigators have not yet reached a judgment on the intent of the staffers’ conversations.

- [Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.] Same NYT article previously cited.

- [While still the sitting President and apparently privy to precisely what was discussed and with whom, Obama has never indicated that the communications he reviewed relating to Trump staffers were a national security risk that needed Congressional investigation.] [This is my recollection – If Obama has commented, I would be interested to see it.]

[JoeRedskin]

So here’s the headline:

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign

The opening sentence:

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.

The closing sentences:

One concern was whether Trump associates were coordinating with Russian intelligence operatives over the release of damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. "If that were the case, then that would escalate things," one official briefed on the investigation said.

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

[JoeRedskin]

So was it "fake news?" No. Not in the sense that the article contained incorrect factual statements. Rather, every fact included is verifiable and the adjectives describing those facts relatively unobjectionable - even if some are reasonably disputable. Further, the article also included Manafort's denial of any contact with Russian officials or "suspected" Russian operatives and a lengthy explanation of the same. So, on its face, it certainly would appear factually correct and fair.

However, deception can be by either commission or omission.

- As to Manafort's denial, never once does the article indicate that Manafort - or anyone for that matter - may not know when they were talking to a suspected Russian operative. In fact, the article never even identifies the "Russian nationals known to US intelligence" as individuals who are suspects that may not even be working for the Russian government. Rather, the only indication that these communications were with "suspected" operatives comes from a quoted Manafort statement. The article's author NEVER adopts, through his own words, this characterization.

- As for the rest, I think the bracketed facts speak for themselves.

Again, to me, the headline chosen, the facts stated, the facts omitted, and the opening and closing sentences are presented in a manner that insinuates a malicious intent on behalf of the staffers while doing so in a manner that is intended to create the impression of a fair representation of the facts. IMHO - a deception of the most invidious nature.

[Oh and by the way, CNN and leakers of classified info ... Thanks! Any actual Russian operatives who spoke with Page, Manafort or Stone during the campaign are now on notice that their cover may have been blown. Pretty sure, Russian counter-intelligence is going to be able to identify those individuals with relative ease since the article - and those who leaked the info - have identified the specific recipients and a relatively tight time frame for the relevant conversations. Great job!]

[Giantone]

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

[Giantone]

This is the shit that has to stop.After watching the actual press conference and seeing and hearing for myself, he does this shit!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president...141957157.html

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.

This is a great read .It's response's from Journalist on Trumps attacks.


Journalists react to being called ‘the enemy of the American people’ – Poynter

[Giantone]

To me this should be sent to Trump and all his advisors.

https://jrbenjamin.com/2015/01/25/te...the-president/

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

[Chico23231]

"The media did not make Donald Trump, and they can't destroy him," Limbaugh said. "But the media thinks -- and when I say media, let me define: ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, that cadre -- they have a formula, they have a blueprint for destroying Republican political officials they don't like. It's not going to work on Trump. He doesn't fit that mold. They're trying to everyday. It's kind of comical to watch."

[MTK]

McCain on shutting down press: That's how dictators get started | TheHill

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by MTK

McCain on shutting down press: That's how dictators get started | TheHill

Yup. Of course it is. So ... has Trump moved to block CNN from printing whatever they want? Is the MSNBC website all of sudden blocked? Have any reporters been imprisoned for printing anti-Trump articles?

Nope. The press is free to print whatever the hell it wants. We, both from the left and the right, are free to call them out on their bias, misrepresentations or whatever else.

Lefties have been mocking Fox News for years highlighting their bias, pointing out were they deceive through omission, etc. Sucks when what goes around comes around.

Freedom of the press is imperative. So is holding them to the standards they claim to be upholding.

[Chico23231]

Since we are talkin bout the corrupt media, any thoughts on bill Maher?

It's entertaining to watch the libs kill him. Always like maher because he understands freedom of speech means freedom of speech...not the pc, liberal censorship going on in this country today. Another reason why trump won.