• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politco sent Articles to DNC for Review

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.

Vogel to DNC

Subject: per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated

Inter-DNC

Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
 
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.

Vogel to DNC



Inter-DNC



https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective parties
B) This particular case simply looks like Politico has given the DNC a chance to rebut the claims Politico is making. In other words, giving the DNC a chance to tell their side of the story, which should be common in journalism.

I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.
 
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.

Vogel to DNC



Inter-DNC



https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?

Normally the press doesn't share their draft article with anyone. They would ask for comment on any claims that would be made in a future article, but they would not give the subject of an article the entire article with quotes and names, and allow them to have editorial license.

This seems to me to be an unethical collusion, not simply asking for comment.
 
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.

Vogel to DNC



Inter-DNC


https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?

Another right wing horror story that means nothing.
 
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective parties
B) This particular case simply looks like Politico has given the DNC a chance to rebut the claims Politico is making. In other words, giving the DNC a chance to tell their side of the story, which should be common in journalism.

I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.

Its simply suspicious. I could see them asking questions, but providing their entire report under a secret agreement not to talk about it?
 
Another right wing horror story that means nothing.

Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?
 
Its simply suspicious. I could see them asking questions, but providing their entire report under a secret agreement not to talk about it?
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.

I don't think that's suspicious at all.
 
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.

Vogel to DNC



Inter-DNC



https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?

My God , if you have noticed the media is 95% liberal and bias as hell by now , then great catch .
 
Another right wing horror story that means nothing.

It's a lot more important than whether Trump's wife used some phrases from a Michelle Obama speech and yet the left doesn't seem to have an issue with making that front page news across the country.
 
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective parties
B) This particular case simply looks like Politico has given the DNC a chance to rebut the claims Politico is making. In other words, giving the DNC a chance to tell their side of the story, which should be common in journalism.

I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.

What may be an interesting exercise to do, would be to compare the final printed version of this story with the version contained in the email. That may show whether the DNC had any influence at all on the final editorial outcome, if the actual story changed from its original position, or if the claims made changed in anyway that reflected more or less positive on either Hillary's campaign or Bernie's campaign.

I'm too lazy right now to look for it and take them line by line, but I would like to see the results of anyone that did so.
 
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.

I don't think that's suspicious at all.

Exactly who was going to steal their work? The DNC?
 
What may be an interesting exercise to do, would be to compare the final printed version of this story with the version contained in the email.
That wouldn't help because the writer said the article hadn't gone to the editors yet.
I'm too lazy right now to look for it and take them line by line, but I would like to see the results of anyone that did so.
I've read the first 5 paragraphs. I'll bold the only difference between the WikiLeaks version and the actual article online.

"In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen." But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.



In the first five paragraphs, I don't see anything which is suspicious.

EDIT: The very next paragraph is written slightly different from the original draft, but not in any way which suggests a better look for the DNC. Looks more like editor changes.

EDIT 2: As far as I can tell, the next five paragraphs (7-11) are written exactly the same.


In conclusion, I don't see any evidence the DNC twisted the article for their benefit.
Exactly who was going to steal their work? The DNC?
If you share the article, then other reporters can get wind of the investigation and write an article themselves.
 
Last edited:
Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?

He simply went to Step 2 - It doesn't mean anything.
If that didn't work there would have been Step 3 - Everybody does it.
 
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.

I don't think that's suspicious at all.

Politico did the work of hacking the DNC?
Cool.
Didn't think Politico would go anywhere near such a thing.
Are you sure Politico hacked the DNC?
 
Politico did the work of hacking the DNC?
Cool.
Didn't think Politico would go anywhere near such a thing.
Are you sure Politico hacked the DNC?
I think you have this thread confused with another. Politico didn't hack the DNC, they reviewed FEC filings.

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties - POLITICO
 
In truth, there's not a great deal of investigative journalism going on.
What happens is some blog or website contacts a "journalist" with a story they want promulgated and that journalist gets it published without seeking much or any verification from the affected party.
From there, other media outlets pick it up without checking.
After all, they could always say "Politico is reporting...".
The practice explains why you hear the story repeated using the same descriptive words.
That's how memes are created.
 
oooooooh ... you mean the incredibly difficult investigative work of accepting the hacked information.
I feel like you literally have no idea what you're talking about. But just in case I'm missing something, why do you think Federal Election Commission filings are "hacked information"?
Yeah, that's tough work.
I don't believe I've stated anything regarding the level of difficulty. But it IS Politico's work, their reporters did the research and wrote the article. Why would they want to do the work to let someone else get the credit?
 
Last edited:
I feel like you literally have no idea what you're talking. But just in case I'm missing something, why do you think Federal Election Commission filings are "hacked information"?
I don't believe I've stated anything regarding the level of difficulty. But it IS Politico's work, their reporters did the research and wrote the article. Why would they want to do the work to let someone else get the credit?

It was probably your attempt to defend Politico letting the DNC work up a defense of a story before publication under the work-product-defense excuse.
Seemed like a reach at the time and hasn't gotten better since.
 
Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?

He called it a horror story. Nobody else did. He must think it's a horror story.

Normally reporters call subjects of a story to get their reaction. This is encourage by the Code of Ethics (pdf file) of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Journalists are supposed to remain free of associations that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. This would seem to be a violation of that rule. They are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any conflicts that can't be avoided.

So if the only way this reporter could get a story was to let the DNC clear it then he should have told the readers that.
 
It was probably your attempt to defend Politico letting the DNC work up a defense of a story before publication under the work-product-defense excuse.
So, according to you, reviewing FEC filings is hacking the DNC because I note that reporters routinely give the other side the opportunity to explain their side of the story?



Seemed like a reach at the time
Says the person who thinks reviewing FEC filings is hacking the DNC.
 
I see nothing wrong with the folks at Politico running articles past the people they work for before they go public.
 
He called it a horror story. Nobody else did. He must think it's a horror story.

Normally reporters call subjects of a story to get their reaction. This is encourage by the Code of Ethics (pdf file) of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Journalists are supposed to remain free of associations that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. This would seem to be a violation of that rule. They are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any conflicts that can't be avoided.

So if the only way this reporter could get a story was to let the DNC clear it then he should have told the readers that.

Where in the story or anywhere else does it indicate that the DNC had the opportunity to clear or block the story?

It's like half the thread is reading a different story than I am.
 
Normally the press doesn't share their draft article with anyone. They would ask for comment on any claims that would be made in a future article, but they would not give the subject of an article the entire article with quotes and names, and allow them to have editorial license.

This seems to me to be an unethical collusion, not simply asking for comment.

That's not indicated in the email at all - nothing approaching that. The quote is, "Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back."
 
Back
Top Bottom