Another CNN Trump Bombshell Goes Off In Their Faces

[LowDown]

CNN breathlessly reported that Donald Trump, Jr., received an email from Wikileaks with anti-Hillary info, which would be collusion.

Brian Fallon: Whoa. If the Trump camp had access to stolen emails in advance and guided Wikileaks' activity last fall, that would amount to a criminal conspiracy.

However, according to the Washington Post, the email was sent on Sept. 14th, not Sept. 4th, as CNN said, which means that it was received after the information had become public knowledge. Moreover, Trump, Jr., and the Trump campaign never read or responded to the email.

This sort of thing happens a lot to news-people who think they already know the ending.

 

[Hawkeye10]

CNN breathlessly reported that Donald Trump, Jr., received an email from Wikileaks with anti-Hillary info, which would be collusion.


However, according to the Washington Post, the email was sent on Sept. 14th, not Sept. 4th, as CNN said, which means that it was received after the information had become public knowledge. Moreover, Trump, Jr., and the Trump campaign never read or responded to the email.

This sort of thing happens a lot to news-people who think they already know the ending.

So we all now agree that Wikileaks is a Russian operation?

No.

 

[Grim17]

So we all now agree that Wikileaks is a Russian operation?

No.

So we all now agree that CNN is guilty of broadcasting another "fake news" hit piece against Trump?


.

 

[ksu_aviator]

So we all now agree that Wikileaks is a Russian operation?

No.

I've never seen anything linking Wikileaks to Russia. They may have accepted information from Russia. But they accept any and all information and then publish what they determine to be true or highly likely to be true.

 

[Hawkeye10]

So we all now agree that CNN is guilty of broadcasting another "fake news" hit piece against Trump?


.

I gotta say that when Trump started going after CNN I was all "I can see that CNN sells victim culture hard everyday and sure they have no use for the Rebellion but they are not worse than a lot of the rest of the lot".

I have been educated.

 

[Grim17]

I've never seen anything linking Wikileaks to Russia. They may have accepted information from Russia. But they accept any and all information and then publish what they determine to be true or highly likely to be true.

Those on the left toss "Russia" out there in the hopes people will forget that every single one of the emails Wikileaks published was legitimate.


.

 

[Mr Person]

Meanwhile Fox had to walk back ITS false claim that the Moore accuser's yearbook was "forged".


It'd be nice if media had more quality control before throwing meat to the viewership, but a stupid mistake is hardly a "bombshell".

 

[gdgyva]

it seems like they are really trying to get rid of him

maybe it has to do with his treatment of reporters earlier

maybe it is just their bias

but a lot of stuff is coming back on them lately

wonder what Ted Turner is thinking (do the kids even know who he is?)

 

[joG]

So we all now agree that Wikileaks is a Russian operation?

No.

Not necessarily a Russian operation. Used by a Russian operation. That doesn’t mean there was nobody in the organization that knew or had been paid.

 

[iguanaman]

Those on the left toss "Russia" out there in the hopes people will forget that every single one of the emails Wikileaks published was legitimate.


.

And every single one was obtained illegally and their release was carefully timed to do the most damage to Hillary and to help Trump. That is very suspicious all by itself.

 

[Grim17]

I gotta say that when Trump started going after CNN I was all "I can see that CNN sells victim culture hard everyday and sure they have no use for the Rebellion but they are not worse than a lot of the rest of the lot".

I have been educated.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but this is getting ridiculous. I've never in my 53 years seen so many false and misleading stories from the mainstream news media focused on trying to destroy any political figure.

Donald Trump offers more ammunition that the news media can use against him, than any other president has in American history... There's no need to make **** up.


.

 

[Perotista]

Meanwhile Fox had to walk back ITS false claim that the Moore accuser's yearbook was "forged".


It'd be nice if media had more quality control before throwing meat to the viewership, but a stupid mistake is hardly a "bombshell".

When it comes to cable news, I think one must realize it is all about money. Regardless of the network, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, they are in the business to make a profit as it is with all businesses. Fox caters to the right, CNN and MSNBC to the left. To maintain their viewership, audience and to enhance a larger audience they play to or report what their viewers want to hear. Most of the time it isn't grossly over reporting or plain lying, but the news received on cable is slanted one way or the other.

It boils down to ratings and the higher the ratings the more money these networks can charge for their commercials. One should take what is being reported here with a grain of salt before jumping off the deep end. Check out the story via other means. These networks have taken sides in the political game. One needs to realize that.

There is no more just reporting the news, the event with just the facts. It's reporting the news and events, happenings in a way that givers their viewers a slant on it that their viewers want to hear. Times have really changed since the days of Walter Cronkite.

 

[iguanaman]

Not necessarily a Russian operation. Used by a Russian operation. That doesn’t mean there was nobody in the organization that knew or had been paid.

It's not like Assange has much of a choice. He only resides in that Embassy at the pleasure of Putin.

 

[Grim17]

And every single one was obtained illegally and their release was carefully timed to do the most damage to Hillary and to help Trump. That is very suspicious all by itself.

So what?

That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

.

 

[Mr Person]

When it comes to cable news, I think one must realize it is all about money. Regardless of the network, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, they are in the business to make a profit as it is with all businesses. Fox caters to the right, CNN and MSNBC to the left. To maintain their viewership, audience and to enhance a larger audience they play to or report what their viewers want to hear. Most of the time it isn't grossly over reporting or plain lying, but the news received on cable is slanted one way or the other.

It boils down to ratings and the higher the ratings the more money these networks can charge for their commercials. One should take what is being reported here with a grain of salt before jumping off the deep end. Check out the story via other means. These networks have taken sides in the political game. One needs to realize that.

There is no more just reporting the news, the event with just the facts. It's reporting the news and events, happenings in a way that givers their viewers a slant on it that their viewers want to hear. Times have really changed since the days of Walter Cronkite.

Right, right. I don't even watch TV news myself. The only time I've seen it in the last 20 years if I visit the in-laws, who have Fox News blaring away. At best, it's infotainment. At worst, propaganda. It's garbage.

Even in a perfect world where it was completely neutral, it would still be garbage. 45-90 seconds of blathering cannot give a full story, unless it's filler, ie, a bear ate this person's garbage out of their trash can!



But a thread like this annoys me. If there's no evidence of malicious intent, it's just another example of why TV news sucks. It's not "bias" or evidence of some fraudulent desire.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Those on the left toss "Russia" out there in the hopes people will forget that every single one of the emails Wikileaks published was legitimate.


.

I agree. Whether Russia or a disillusioned democratic staffer released the e-mails, the DNC still stacked the cards against Sen. Sanders as well as multiple other indiscretions. That part has never been disputed.

 

[Grim17]

But a thread like this annoys me. If there's no evidence of malicious intent, it's just another example of why TV news sucks. It's not "bias" or evidence of some fraudulent desire.

Of course it's political bias... If it wasn't, then the overwhelming majority of the so called "mistakes" wouldn't negatively effect only one side of the political spectrum. Where are all of the fake stories from CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS that reflected positively for the right, oe negatively for the left?

.

 

[Mr Person]

Of course it's political bias... If it wasn't, then the overwhelming majority of the so called "mistakes" wouldn't negatively effect only one side of the political spectrum. Where are all of the fake stories from CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS that reflected positively for the right, oe negatively for the left?

.

I never said they weren't biased, though. You cut out some important bits there:

Right, right. I don't even watch TV news myself. The only time I've seen it in the last 20 years if I visit the in-laws, who have Fox News blaring away. At best, it's infotainment. At worst, propaganda. It's garbage.

Even in a perfect world where it was completely neutral, it would still be garbage. 45-90 seconds of blathering cannot give a full story, unless it's filler, ie, a bear ate this person's garbage out of their trash can!

But a thread like this annoys me. If there's no evidence of malicious intent, it's just another example of why TV news sucks. It's not "bias" or evidence of some fraudulent desire.

The point isn't that this is some huge bombshell or "fake news" or anything. It's a ****-up, unless you have evidence of intent.

 

[Perotista]

Right, right. I don't even watch TV news myself. The only time I've seen it in the last 20 years if I visit the in-laws, who have Fox News blaring away. At best, it's infotainment. At worst, propaganda. It's garbage.

Even in a perfect world where it was completely neutral, it would still be garbage. 45-90 seconds of blathering cannot give a full story, unless it's filler, ie, a bear ate this person's garbage out of their trash can!



But a thread like this annoys me. If there's no evidence of malicious intent, it's just another example of why TV news sucks. It's not "bias" or evidence of some fraudulent desire.

When CNN first came on the air back in 1980, I was a big fan of it. It might have been Ted Turner's brainchild, but in the beginning CNN reported the news in my opinion fairly accurate with little to no bias. Being 24 hours, CNN could delve deep into stories that the major three over the air networks never had time to do. I used to love watching Crossfire on CNN, long since gone.

Fox came along in 1996 to fill a vacuum, by then CNN had moved left with the switches in ownership. Fox gave conservatives viewers a news network they wanted to watch and soon Fox News became the number one watched cable news network. MSNBC soon followed and since MSNBC was reporting with a leftist bias, it took some of the viewership away from CNN.

But in reality, especially Fox and MSNBC have become nothing more than propaganda arms of the the RNC and DNC. CNN prior to last years election in order to try to regain some of its previous viewership moved some to the center. But since Trump won, CNN has become the anti-Trump network. Whether that is because of Trump's attacks on the network or that is just CNN's political bias, I don't know.

That's my take on this whole mess. I don't think I would trust any of the cable news networks to accurately report the news.

 

[Lutherf]

I agree. Whether Russia or a disillusioned democratic staffer released the e-mails, the DNC still stacked the cards against Sen. Sanders as well as multiple other indiscretions. That part has never been disputed.

Now that's just silly. What they were doing was working tirelessly to save America from the prospect of a life without Hillary. Everybody knows that it was Hillary's turn to be president and break that glass ceiling. Unfortunately, she had to fight off all the misogynists who wanted her to fail just because she was a woman.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Now that's just silly. What they were doing was working tirelessly to save America from the prospect of a life without Hillary. Everybody knows that it was Hillary's turn to be president and break that glass ceiling. Unfortunately, she had to fight off all the misogynists who wanted her to fail just because she was a woman.

Sent from my iDont 6S. The S is for sucks.

 

[Carleen]

So we all now agree that CNN is guilty of broadcasting another "fake news" hit piece against Trump?


.

They corrected it so it is not fake news.

 

[trouble13]

So we all now agree that Wikileaks is a Russian operation?

No.

I agree that wkileaks has more credability than CNN

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[PLizzy]

When CNN first came on the air back in 1980, I was a big fan of it. It might have been Ted Turner's brainchild, but in the beginning CNN reported the news in my opinion fairly accurate with little to no bias. Being 24 hours, CNN could delve deep into stories that the major three over the air networks never had time to do. I used to love watching Crossfire on CNN, long since gone.

Fox came along in 1996 to fill a vacuum, by then CNN had moved left with the switches in ownership. Fox gave conservatives viewers a news network they wanted to watch and soon Fox News became the number one watched cable news network. MSNBC soon followed and since MSNBC was reporting with a leftist bias, it took some of the viewership away from CNN.

But in reality, especially Fox and MSNBC have become nothing more than propaganda arms of the the RNC and DNC. CNN prior to last years election in order to try to regain some of its previous viewership moved some to the center. But since Trump won, CNN has become the anti-Trump network. Whether that is because of Trump's attacks on the network or that is just CNN's political bias, I don't know.

That's my take on this whole mess. I don't think I would trust any of the cable news networks to accurately report the news.

I think Trump just hates the idea of a free press in general. He's used to just lying and screwing-up without any accountability, so when a news organization holds him to his word and points out his pathological lying and incompetency, he does anything he can to put his base and the media in adversarial roles.

But the more he attacks them the more they want to cover him, which fuels the ratings.

 

[Perotista]

I think Trump just hates the idea of a free press in general. He's used to just lying and screwing-up without any accountability, so when a news organization holds him to his word and points out his pathological lying and incompetency, he does anything he can to put his base and the media in adversarial roles.

But the more he attacks them the more they want to cover him, which fuels the ratings.

It very well could be all about ratings. The higher the ratings, the more money the news channels can charge for commercial time. Public trust in the media is at an all time low, at least according to Gallup.

Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

But trust in the media has been slowly evaporating for some time now as indicated by one of the graphs. From 50% in 2003 to 40% in 2015 and then a huge drop of 8 points in 2016 down to 32%. So it's more than just Trump, although he added fuel to that fire to add speed to the distrust of the media.

30% of Americans think Trump is honest and trustworthy, about as close to even as one will get with the media. Both distrusted by a majority of Americans. Question 90.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jhdmzhxe6k/econTabReport.pdf

Perhaps the best answer is not to believe either until one double checks and verifies.