Has Fox News stopped reporting on the Hillary Clinton spy story?

[Cardinal]

Fat chance.

I said “should be made to.” Obviously they wouldn’t do that out of any principle of “journalistic integrity.”

 

[JMB802]

I hope Hannity pushes it enough for Hillary to sue.

FOX lawyers will just use the Tucker defense.

Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statement he makes."

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Durham revealed that fox lied. I guess you're still waiting though.

He didn't say that, which is in fact a lie.

 

[poweRob]

He didn't say that, which is in fact a lie.

I said he revealed it. Why are you lying now?

 

[US&THEM]

He didn't say that, which is in fact a lie.

Fox News did what they do best feed their old white people audience fodder to get them upset.

 

[JMB802]

He didn't say that, which is in fact a lie.

Overstated, understated, misinterpreted facts AKA lying


Durham added: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information."

Durham Probe | Fox News

A review led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the handling of the Russia investigation by law enforcement and intelligence agencies

www.foxnews.com

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Overstated, understated, misinterpreted facts AKA lying


Durham added: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information."

Durham Probe | Fox News

A review led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the handling of the Russia investigation by law enforcement and intelligence agencies

www.foxnews.com

He didn't say lie...aka, you did.

 

[JMB802]

He didn't say lie...aka you did.

Nitpicking can be comforting.

 

[Cardinal]

Overstated, understated, misinterpreted facts AKA lying


Durham added: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information."

Durham Probe | Fox News

A review led by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the handling of the Russia investigation by law enforcement and intelligence agencies

www.foxnews.com

Brilliant. His ambiguity can be used to debunk the lie and keep the lie afloat in MAGA world simultaneously.

It can be said that it rejects Fox’s false narrative, but if you don’t want to believe that it’s a rejection of the false narrative then you don’t have to. It’s a perfect inkblot test: everybody gets to see what they want to see.

There was nothing stopping Durham from stating that “Fox’s interpretation and characterization of my filing is untrue,” but he wouldn’t do that. He’s a hack through and through.

His statement was crafted to create the impression of correcting the record, not correcting the record itself.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Nitpicking can be comforting.

Your version of nitpicking is a distortion of what was actually said. Durham added a disclaimer at the beginning of his statement.... "IF"

 

[JMB802]

Your version of nitpicking is a distortion of what was actually said. Durham added a disclaimer at the beginning of his statement.... "IF"

Distortion? I posted Durham's exact quote from the FOX news link.

I'm done wasting my time responding to foolish comments. Have a lovely day.

 

[JMB802]

Brilliant. His ambiguity can be used to debunk the lie and keep the lie afloat in MAGA world simultaneously.

Technically it rejects Fox’s false narrative, but if you don’t want to believe that it’s a rejection of the false narrative then you don’t have to.

There was nothing stopping Durham from stating that “Fox’s interpretation and characterization of my filing is untrue,” but he wouldn’t do that. He’s a hack through and through.

I totally agree. Trump and the rest of his mob speak in a very ambiguous way that supporters use to soothe themselves by picking and choosing which statements to support. Then they can 'splain the contradictions or just ignore them. Meanwhile, the GQP dogs lift their heads at every whistle.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Distortion? I posted Durham's exact quote from the FOX news link.

I'm done wasting my time responding to foolish comments. Have a lovely day.

Busted..

Brilliant. His ambiguity can be used to debunk the lie and keep the lie afloat in MAGA world simultaneously.

It can be said that it rejects Fox’s false narrative, but if you don’t want to believe that it’s a rejection of the false narrative then you don’t have to. It’s a perfect inkblot test: everybody gets to see what they want to see.

There was nothing stopping Durham from stating that “Fox’s interpretation and characterization of my filing is untrue,” but he wouldn’t do that. He’s a hack through and through.

His statement was crafted to create the impression of correcting the record, not correcting the record itself.

Moving the goalposts.

 

[JMB802]

Busted.

 

[Rexedgar]

Funny you should mention him, I read he was out the other day hunting for self respect!

It’s not in season for Cruz.

 

[Cardinal]

I totally agree. Trump and the rest of his mob speak in a very ambiguous way that supporters use to soothe themselves by picking and choosing which statements to support. Then they can 'splain the contradictions or just ignore them. Meanwhile, the GQP dogs lift their heads at every whistle.

Durham shouldn’t be looked to to correct the record. Other people had to do that. Fox may have created the lie, but Durham knowingly gave them the ambiguity and the cover to do it.

What Durham engaged in was “scandal fan service.”

“Perhaps, one of these weeks, Special Counsel John Durham will crack open serious wrongdoing in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is not that week.

But following a Friday filing by Durham, a Justice Department attorney appointed in 2019 to investigate the investigation, many right-wing outlets insisted it was, and pilloried the mainstream press for giving the filing short shrift. Eventually, the mainstream outlets grudgingly obliged, and what they found is, well, not much: The filing comes in a curious case against a lawyer who worked for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign. In the fantasy version, the filing shows that the Clinton campaign had a mole in Trump Tower and the White House. In reality, as the journalists Charlie Savage and Philip Bump detail, it does not demonstrate this at all.

If you must know more, dig into those explainers, but you can save yourself the time. This flap is what we might call a “fan-service scandal,” to borrow a term for when entertainment franchises produce content designed to excite enthusiasts, not move stories forward. The latest bit of Durham-investigation news is a titillating plot twist for people who have already bought into the Trump narrative, and largely incomprehensible—and inconsequential—for those who haven’t. This duality makes fan-service scandals powerful tools for motivating a base or keeping it frothed up, but they don’t usually work well as tools of persuasion.”

The Atlantic

The Atlantic covers news, politics, culture, technology, health, and more, through its articles, podcasts, videos, and flagship magazine.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Liberal7360]

I still haven't seen anything about Durham "debunking" anything. The content of the document Durham submitted is still fact.

I don't know how you missed it. There are threads about it on this message board.

However, since you missed it, here is the article:

John Durham says 'members of the media' may have 'misinterpreted' claims he made in a recent court filing

Durham said he's not at fault if "members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained" in the filing.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Cardinal]

Busted..



Moving the goalposts.

Demonstrating that you have no idea what “moving the goal posts” means.

His “correction” didn’t say anything, just as his filing didn’t say anything. He created meaningless, substanceless text that allows you to see what you want to be there.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I still haven't seen anything about Durham "debunking" anything. The content of the document Durham submitted is still fact.

And Durham says the content of that document is not what right wing media like fox says it was.

If you still haven't seen that you are in a bubble of disinformation.

You really need better sources.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Demonstrating that you have no idea what “moving the goal posts” means.

His “correction” didn’t say anything, just as his filing didn’t say anything. He created meaningless, substanceless text that allows you to see what you want to be there.

You went from lie, to Duram playing both sides. That's moving goalposts.

 

[Cardinal]

You went from lie, to Duram playing both sides. That's moving goalposts.

Proving that you have no idea who you’re ever responding to.

And yes, Durham fooled both sides (with an obvious bias toward helping MAGA World). He fooled conservatives into creating a false narrative, and then he fooled democrats into believing that his meaningless statement was a correction of Fox’s fake story.

Quite the little shit stirrer is Durham.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Proving that you have no idea who you’re ever responding to.

And yes, Durham fooled both sides (with an obvious bias toward favoring MAGA World) . He fooled conservatives into creating a false narrative, and then he fooled democrats into believing that his meaningless statement was a correction of Fox’s fake story.

Quite the little shit stirrer is Durham.

That's quite a fabrication. Based on facts initially released by Duram.

 

[Liberal7360]

He didn't say that, which is in fact a lie.

Of course he didn't use the word lie.

He used the words "misrepresented claims I made in the recent court filing."

Can you tell me the difference?

 

[Cardinal]

That's quite a fabrication. Based on facts initially released by Duram.

There are no facts in his filing that would reasonably lead to the creation of Fox’s fake story. His filing was an inkblot test. You saw what you wanted to see.

That’s why the narrative you promote is Fox’s and not the wording from the filing. If you depended on the text from the filing you would have…nothing at all.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

There are no facts in his filing that would reasonably lead to the creation of Fox’s fake story. His filing was an inkblot test. You saw what you wanted to see.

That’s why the narrative you promote is Fox’s and not the wording from the filing. If you depended on the text from the filing you would have…nothing at all.

The fact is on what he actually filed. I have not promoted foxes narrative. I only mentioned Durams statement, in which he mentioned no lies, on any particular news organization. The rest, you lefties made up.