-
Oh what a surprise, a left leaning news organisation desperate for something, anything to stick to Trump makes up a news story with anonymous sources.
That’s only happened 100 times in the last three years.
That’s why they all have no credibility anymore and stupid terms like fake news can used.
Trump lies all the time, but so do these journalists. That means now when you pick your team in the US there is a broken system of getting information that locks you in.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I will still disagree about the whole 'fake news' thing. I still think it is a badly used term.
Here is a scenario that fits this story. (not saying this is what happened, but it could be)
Credible witnesses that were part of this int. gathering and analysis approach you as a journalist because they believe that their analysis (that Russia was paying the Taliban based on US troops killed) was presented to POTUS and no action was taken.
They added the int. to the PDB and were told it would be passed on. However in the final peer review senior decision was taken that for something this important the evidence needed to be much stronger and the topic wouldn't be presented to POTUS but discussed further at the interagency meeting.
The 'sources' still believe their version is correct because no one told them otherwise.
As a journalist what are you meant to do? You have the very people who wrote the assessment telling you it was in the PDB. Obviously you can't see the proof.
Would you rather that this wasn't published and questions weren't asked? I wouldn't.
The story is written, and I quote...
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
The journalist isn't claiming any more knowledge than what has been presented to them and it certainly meets any threshold of credibility. Any further verification can only be achieved by the story coming out.Shouting 'Fake News' at this is a sure way to degrade the quality of journalism even more.
Fake news is made up stories. Allegations that aren't checked out or come from poor sources but published to get headlines. Not ones where some unknown information changes the picture and clarifies matters.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Crucial I'd never heard of the term fake news until Donald Trump. Fake news is just news that he doesn't like
TBF it does exist.
To start with there were social media type posts masquerading as journalism that influenced people despite having no fact checking or credibility. Then, as position entrenchment has happened more and more there are blogs pretending to be fact and MSM using 'Opinion' type articles (like rugby and Ratpoo) to push views. These are often easily spotted by the use of hyperbole and logic jumps.
Yes, 'they' made a bed and have to lie in it but one sure way to kill of real journalism (which we need as a fourth estate) is to pounce on every error and shout 'Fake!' or worse still to call everything that you don't agree with 'Fake'.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
At this point I put individual independent journalists with a good track record well ahead of most msm content.
Great. Who do you read?
Quite a variety now though it takes a while before a source becomes trusted, some sources I trust more for specific types of news than others. I'd say the core of my general news I get from Tim Pool (US with some world news), Tarl Warwick aka Styxhexxenhammer666 (US Politics), Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad (UK News & Politics) & Jeremy Habley aka The Quartering (Gaming/Celebrity Drama). They aren't perfect and their strengths are in their specialities but all 4 don't knowingly lie and when they have made mistakes they own up to them.
If I'm looking at something more closely then I try to get on-the-ground reporting where possible. For riot and protest issues which are pretty commonplace now I look for Andy Ngo, Luke Rudowski, Ford Fisher and Jack Dawkins. Some of them have ideological bents but they back their stories up with video rather than bs prose that you'd find in places like 'the guardian'.
For islam related issues especially when it comes to an inability to translate what has happened I go to Maajid Nawaz and Imam Tawhidi.
I also follow 'Nick Munroe' who does some great research pieces on larger issues such as internet censorship he also runs an open newsroom where independent journos and people with an interest in this stuff share events as they happen, lots of shit in there but you occasionally get pointed to some good source material.
I also follow SCNR (Formerly Subverse News) which is Tim Pools media company which he made in order to try and fight back against the scourge of fake news. I find TLDR News good for presenting both sides of a story on generally UK news and politics.
Outside of that I look favourably on Douglas Murray, Glen Greenwald, Clare Lehman, Sydney Watson, Helen Dale, Matt Taibbi, Dave Rubin, Raheem Kassam, Melissa Chen, Tucker Carlson and probably a few others that have appeared on the Rubin report that have come across well and have not yet led me down the garden path.
I have zero faith in The Guardian having witnessed first hand a reporter completely fabricating a story at an event I was present at. Almost zero faith in ABC news again due to a journalist not fabricating but exaggerating another event that I was standing next to her at in order to help spin her narrative. Zero faith in Channel 9 international news where they are either knowingly lieing about events in the US or are just following CNNs lead (My Mrs listens to this when she cooks and I often storm down stair to show her an uncut video of what they are talking about which shows a completely different story). All the main outlets in the US are now just as bad as Fox news and maybe even worse as at least sometimes Fox tries to hold Trump accountable as seen in the story Crucial refers to.
Its a bitter pill to swallow but mainstream media is not reliable. They are of course sometimes accurate but their main driver isn't truth its 'clicks' and as they are artificially held up by giant social media platforms as being reliable they don't have to suffer the consequences as individuals and smaller organisations when they lie. Its particularly hard for the older generation who don't have access to (or understand there are) alternatives, my partners father for example is almost frothing at the mouth when talking about how pure evil Trump is. Thing is the majority of this hatred is based on total fabrications or out of context clips pushed by mainstream news riding the 'Trump bump'.
Its one thing making an old man have a burning rage against a US president and his supporters but you push that bs out to a younger generation and you start to see people killed and cities burn. Look at the following 15 minute video of this woman being harrassed with the youth bombarding her with now completely debunked Trump stories that had previously been pushed by mainstream outlets. Trump is evil so we now get to be evil to you.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Crucial I'd never heard of the term fake news until Donald Trump. Fake news is just news that he doesn't like
TBF it does exist.
To start with there were social media type posts masquerading as journalism that influenced people despite having no fact checking or credibility. Then, as position entrenchment has happened more and more there are blogs pretending to be fact and MSM using 'Opinion' type articles (like rugby and Ratpoo) to push views. These are often easily spotted by the use of hyperbole and logic jumps.
Yes, 'they' made a bed and have to lie in it but one sure way to kill of real journalism (which we need as a fourth estate) is to pounce on every error and shout 'Fake!' or worse still to call everything that you don't agree with 'Fake'.
It existed in MSM as well with Fox news distorting events through their bias, then CNN and other left leaning organizations jumped on board that train too.
News orgs have always had biases, but I'm not sure it's ever been this bad. If felt like there was some attempt at integrity and having multiple sources.
Now things are clearly being made up and they are getting caught.
All Trump has done with the "Fake News" quip is summarise the malaise.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Kirwan From memory didn't the 'Fake News' term come out of the Democrat camp to attack Trump? Somehow he managed to turn it around on them.
I thought it was that blonde skeletor Trump had on his campaign? Who can keep up?
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Kirwan From memory didn't the 'Fake News' term come out of the Democrat camp to attack Trump? Somehow he managed to turn it around on them.
I thought it was that blonde skeletor Trump had on his campaign? Who can keep up?
Conway?
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
From memory didn't the 'Fake News' term come out of the Democrat camp to attack Trump? Somehow he managed to turn it around on them.
It was Hillary Clinton
-
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.I didn’t see the story as being framed around Trump. That was the subsequent interpretation. The story was around bounties and how that had been raised at high levels (correct) and nothing done. The sources claimed that Trump had been briefed which may be incorrect.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.
Exactly. With recurring revenue, they'll be fine as long as they don't have high churn.
I'd join - and stay - if they could make a better effort of being accurate and not quite such a supporter of the Democratic party/anti Republican.
US Politics