CNN's Brian Stelter wondered if journalists should sign off Twitter since they were fooled so badly by a refrigerator mechanic. Ace said "heavens no, don't sign off Twitter!"
What twitter exposed was that you were also dumb, easily duped, eager to believe self-justifying conspiracy theories, thin-skinned, arrogant, incompetent, disgracefully lazy, psychologically (and almost certainly physically) inadequate, dunderheadedly unimaginative and unwilling to consider any idea not within the braindead leftwing Incela Corridor Conventional Wisdom Bubble, prone to the most cowardly go-along-to-get-along sort of groupthink, and weak.I can't believe Ace said that about Time's Person of the Year. Here's some more conservative pouncing from City Journal:
Reporters have always made errors, but mistakes should occur independent of ideology. What we’re seeing instead is a pattern—media miscues always occur in the same direction, in favor of the liberal perspective. Over the last two years, countless “bombshell” reports have signaled grave danger for the Trump presidency, up to and including impeachment or resignation. Trump’s son got an early look at the Wikileaks pages; Anthony Scaramucci was tied to a dodgy Russian hedge fund; Michael Cohen met Russians in Prague; Paul Manafort met Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London; James Comey would testify that Trump was under investigation; and so on. As outrage ebbs from each discredited story, it is relegated to the memory hole in time for the next one to emerge.Strangely left off this list: Buzzfeed's super-exclusive on Trump's coaching of Michael Cohen. Let's all shed a tear for Buzzfeed and Huffpost's beautiful, diverse, inclusive baby. Sad!
Finally, let's conclude with this clear-headed admission from the Atlantic: "The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story."
I am prompted to issue my own ethics reminders for The New York Times. Here they are: You were partly responsible for the election of Trump because you are the most influential newspaper in the country, and you are not fair or impartial. Millions of Americans believe you hate them and that you will casually harm them. Two years ago, they fought back against you, and they won. If Trump wins again, you will once again have played a small but important role in that victory.Finally: all the news that's fit to print.
"I haven't seen Conservatives so united since the last time we tried to destroy an innocent person's life." https://t.co/5ClalGTqbw— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) January 23, 2019
17 comments:
media miscues always occur in the same direction, in favor of the liberal perspective.
Which means they are not 'miscues' - it's deliberate, and anyone thinking otherwise is naïve, foolish, galaxy-class stupid or all of the above.
What we’re seeing instead is a pattern—media miscues always occur in the same direction, in favor of the liberal perspective.
New York Times, Oct. 31, 2016:
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
Fox News, May 16, 2017:
Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks
I could post a bare minimum of twenty stories proving my point for every one you post attempting to disprove it. Game on, asshole:
You're already in arrears - get busy, dickhead.
The NY Times got one right: there is no link to Russia.
Hey, look who's back! It's BuzzFeed Boy!
Wounds all licked?
Now batting, number sixty-four:
Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.
Hey, look who's back!
Great to be back, person who supposedly doesn't care about my posts -- when he even reads them at all, of course! -- and takes special note of my comings and goings.
So much attention to little me. And all I did was show that anyone who agrees that yes, "media miscues always occur in the same direction, in favor of the liberal perspective" is "naïve, foolish, galaxy-class stupid or all of the above." (Is that a direct quote from the exclusive "Clinton Cash" excerpts in the New York Times and the Washington Post?)
But the Telegraph? Apparently the dreaded liberal MSM now extends to jolly old Fleet Street, England. Best to ignore the time when the leftwingers who run the Daily Kos' sister publication the Daily Mail had to pay for publishing a story that Melania used to drain dicks for cash.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39575680
Hey, guess what was posted on Buzzfeed 24 minutes before your response?
Dimwitted fool seen pimping our fraudulent stories on blog comments, and we can't stop laughing"
Buzzfeed, January 19: "We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing."
Buzzfeed, January 19: "As we’ve re-confirmed our reporting, we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate. We remain confident in what we’ve reported, and will share more as we are able."
Rudy Giuliani speaking about Donald Trump and Michael Cohen's testimony, January 20: "And so what if he talked to him about it? ...[It] would be perfectly normal."
Buzzfeed, Jan. 20: "We're being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we're 100% behind it."
Buzzfeed, January 20: "BuzzFeedNews' bombshell investigation into Trump Tower Moscow, a report we emphatically stand behind."
Rudy Giuliani speaking about the Trump Tower Moscow project, January 21: "No plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file."
Buzzfeed, January 22: Trump’s Lawyer Said There Were “No Plans” For Trump Tower Moscow. Here They Are.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/here-are-the-trump-moscow-plans
Wow, I hadn't actually thought you had fully drunk the BuzzFeed worship kool-aid. But you never cease to amaze me.
" "We're being told to stand our ground. "
And apparently, so are you.
My dilemma - whom to believe about Cohen's testimony, special counsel Mueller's office or BuzzFeed?
Ahhhp, I think this tipped the scales...
But you hang in there, you'll be vindicated in the end. 2019 is going to be so much fun.
A more centered person might notice that Mueller's statement does not contradict the central claim that Trump suborned perjury. It specifically says the inaccuracy is "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office."
In October 1972, the Washington Post's Woodward and Bernstein famously published an incorrect article stating that President Nixon's campaign treasurer Hugh Sloan had testified to a grand jury that Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman controlled the campaign's secret slush fund. The story was wrong-- Sloan had not told the grand jury that. He later said he would have told them that, but was never asked the appropriate question. Meanwhile, Haldemann did control the illegal slush fund. The article's correct point was incorrectly reported.
We don't know why or how the story is incorrect -- Mueller didn't say. But Buzzfeed being so aggressively resolute about the story's fundamental accuracy is notable, and should be worrisome.
My dilemma - whom to believe about Cohen's testimony, special counsel Mueller's office or BuzzFeed?
Our poor soul doesn't realize that he's just endorsed the WITCH HUNT. (On even-numbered days, the Special Counsel's word is the gold standard; but on odd-numbered days, Mueller and his 13 Angry Democrats are just trying to overturn an election?)
This is not a logic road even Stupid wants to go down. Can we now assume it's true that Michael Cohen went to Prague, because Mueller's office didn't issue a statement against it?
2019 is going to be so much fun.
You might have fun at that. A lot of masochists do enjoy it.
...he's just endorsed the WITCH HUNT...
I knew that when I indicated Mueller was the expert on the testimony Cohen gave to him, it would elicit such an example of kindergarten logic from our Commissar.
When someone who is "out to get" a target gives information that is of benefit to that person, I know I can "endorse" it, and even consider it probably more reliable information than any given by an ally of the target.
Examples: If MSNBC were to report a favorable "fact" about Trump, I would consider that more reliable information than if the Free Beacon reported it. Similarly, if Daily Wire reported a favorable "fact" about AOC, any liberal would consider their word to be the "gold standard".
This isn't too complicated for a kindergartner to understand, but does our Commissar have that subtlety of intellect? His response will tell all, won't it?
Exit question: Is it "worrisome" and/or "notable" that BuzzFeed was "so aggressively resolute" in assigning a serial fabulist to be the co-author of their report?
The Columbia Journal Review, you say?
BuzzFeed was right to publish Trump-Russia files
By publishing the documents when it did, accompanied by strong caveats about their reliability, BuzzFeed put itself at the heart of the story and made some of its most prominent journalists go-to people for any tips the dossier might generate. ... If this strategy pays off, the outlet that has morphed from a cat-video factory to a font of serious journalism could end up with some terrific scoops.
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/buzzfeed_trump_russia_memos.php
Lawfareblog.com:
We thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time. In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.
These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.
...Our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.
However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/22/week-83-buzzfeed-takes-a-victory-lap-223556
Hilariously, the response is yet more kindergarten logic from the Commissar (henceforth abbreviate-able as "the commi").
Me: "The co-author of the discredited BuzzFeed article is a known serial fabulist."
The commi: "But the publication that labeled him as such, said a year ago that BuzzFeed was smart to publish the Steele Dossier!"
I simply leave everyone to contemplate the looniness.
Poor Rogert has gone from taunting "Robert Mueller will save us!" to actually saying "Robert Mueller will save us!"
A smart person -- or even a mediocre person -- would take a small reflective pause upon seeing Buzzfeed so emphatically double, triple and quadruple down on their disputed reporting. Not Rogert.
"B-B-But they say their story is accurate!!!1!"
BuzzFeed is long past the point of having something to lose from "quadrupling down" on its fraudulent and now-forgotten article.
So forgive those of us with at least a mediocre level of intelligence for not quaking in our boots at the click-bait farm's emphatic manner.
But hey, commi, whatever keeps your world from crumbling....
Post a Comment