President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

There are exceptionally rare instances where a deliberate intent to mislead is newsworthy in-and-of itself. Which was the case with the Post story about the woman affiliated with Project Veritas.

 

Oh. Has CNN said they won’t use these sources again? I haven’t heard them say that.

Have they said whether they were sources for previous articles, and whether they are reviewing those stories?

But, also, if they purposely lied to CNN, as the James O’Keefe operative lied to the Post, then they absolutely deserve to be outed.

And, unless they can provide some plausible explanation for how two sources could indep read the same date wrongly, I don’t know why we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

If they had the email, there’s just no way they got it wrong. If they didn’t have the email, they were second hand sources, at best, and should be used by CNN, and we should learn why they were trusted.

 

No. Not at all. Those are all based on the President’s characterization.

How do we know he was sucking down a pack a day?

 

If your point is that CNN screwed up, you're not going to get an argument. They should have had the actual email rather than simply relying on the word of someone who had read it.

As to outing the sources, CNN believes the sources, while mistaken, didn't intentionally mislead the reporters.

"A CNN spokesperson said there will not be disciplinary action in this case because the reporters followed CNN's editorial standards process, which requires review and approval of the use of anonymous sources. CNN says it does not believe that the sources intended to deceive the reporters."

CNN corrects story on email to Trumps about Wikileaks

As for a "plausible explanation" as to how two sources could have different information, it's pretty straightforward and at the crux of where CNN went wrong: CNN's sources had simply read the email and didn't have a copy available. Washington Post's sources - and others - had an actual copy of the email with the real date.

There is no need for CNN to publicly out the source or even say that they won't use the source again when it's entirely possible it's a one-time mistake. If I were CNN's editors and reporters attached to this story, I'd certainly be more skeptical, but I wouldn't automatically cut off all contact.

 

It's almost like an individual's credibility has a lot to do with whether or not they're believable.

Obama, for all his faults, generally spoke the truth (at least as well as most politicians). His doctors, who have documented degrees and verifiable credentials, have corroborated Obama's evaluation as an occasional smoker.

Trump, meanwhile, has a doctor with questionable credentials write up a health report in the backseat of a limo and has routinely lied about a number of topics. His own Twitter account is a study in contradictions. His credibility is in question, as is his doctor's. You may like Trump to some extent, or at least not despise him as much as others. But it's impossible to refute the fact that he has lied on countless occasions, certainly more than the average politician.

 

This is one long way to say, “ trust me,” but you can’t keep getting the story wrong and fall back on “ trust me”. There needs to be some transparency.

I know CNN didn’t see the email — which is incredible in itself, and I don’t know how that meets their standards — but how did their sources, two of them supposedly, get the date wrong?

And, let’s remember, CBS and MSNBC both “independently” confirmed CNN’s reporting.

CBS even had the email — except that the heading, with the date had been cut off.

It looks a LOT like someone was pushing a false story.

 

Soloflyer made a mistake in his response to this. He assumed YF gives a damn about journalistic principles. They are just something he uses to attack media outlets which dare publish anything negative about President Trump and his other Republican heroes.

Sanders was the one making an accusation here and she presented no valid evidence at all to support her claim, but as usual, YF throws standards out the window if it is a story he likes.

 

That is in the story? Wow. Link?

 

Foodies annoy me. Can’t help it.

Now where the hell is the barrel strength Elijah Craig? No, sweetheart. Not the 12-year. Fuck. The 12-year is virtually sewage.

 

Why the lack of transparency from CNN?

— CNN has said little about its editorial process or why it believes its sources were acting in good faith even when the information they provided was bad. When rolling out its "Facts First" campaign in October, a CNN spokesperson said the network "felt compelled" to participate in the conversation "around journalism and media and the First Amendment." But the network is largely sitting out the conversation happening now around CNN's own journalism. No CNN executives or reporters involved in the bungled story appeared on Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” in which host Brian Stelter noted the mistake “caused a black eye” for the network.

The president seizes on media mistakes — CNN still faces questions —Promoting newsroom transparency, accountability — 'Dreamers' guest-edit Guardian US — Megyn Kelly meets Trump accusers

 

I just bought some Elijah last night. Never had it before and it was on sale. It was fine. I wasn't blown away.

 

The sheer gall of a Trumpista saying others are purposely misleading is mind-boggling.