Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
 
 

FTA:

 

You will note that a single source tells Sciutto this. Again, were the shoe on the other foot, CNN would be questioning whether Sciutto got it from someone sympathetic to his politics and Sciutto then interpreted everything else through that lens.

The key framing from CNN is that the President put the source in jeopardy. That is Sciutto’s major emphasis and, in his interview on CNN, what he goes to first until pushed for more.

Contrast that with the New York Times’ follow up reporting.

The decision to extract the informant was driven “in part” because of concerns that Mr. Trump and his administration had mishandled delicate intelligence, CNN reported. But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. 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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, B-Man said:
 
 

FTA:

 

You will note that a single source tells Sciutto this. Again, were the shoe on the other foot, CNN would be questioning whether Sciutto got it from someone sympathetic to his politics and Sciutto then interpreted everything else through that lens.

The key framing from CNN is that the President put the source in jeopardy. That is Sciutto’s major emphasis and, in his interview on CNN, what he goes to first until pushed for more.

Contrast that with the New York Times’ follow up reporting.

The decision to extract the informant was driven “in part” because of concerns that Mr. Trump and his administration had mishandled delicate intelligence, CNN reported. But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. 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.

 

And it's once again helpful to point out that Scuitto was an Obama employee before becoming a "journalist". 

 

I'm sure that plays no role in his objectivity. None at all. 

 

(The media is not your friend...)

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And it's once again helpful to point out that Scuitto was an Obama employee before becoming a "journalist". 

 

I'm sure that plays no role in his objectivity. None at all. 

 

(The media is not your friend...)

 

They stopped being journalists a long time ago and are now 24 hour infomercials for the DNC

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

 

 

The FBI talked to Ramirez, followed what they could find credible, but likely found what Ronan Farrow found— one of the main pushers of Ramirez’s story had only ever heard it secondhand... from someone who has no memory of it. Nonsensical hearsay. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates …

 

 

 

Read this paragraph from the New York Times, then re-read it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testify.html 

Dn1OQCHXgAENtB-.jpg:large

 

 

 

The Ramirez/Kavanaugh story completely fell apart under scrutiny and the reporters who wrote it despite embarrassing sourcing took major reputations hits.

 

That it still somehow found it’s way into a book with even the slightest editing and scrutiny should be shocking, but isn't

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
×
×
  • Create New...