Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


What would it take?

Debating with the enemy


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-17-2017, 02:31 PM   #11
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
Re: What would it take?

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!]
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 02-17-2017 at 02:58 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.87907 seconds with 11 queries