Trump Destroyed CNN reporter

[Dashinka 23,211]

17 hours ago, smilesammich said:

um, no. all presidents do not want to 'control the media'.

and really? FDR - gee i wonder why a president would need to control commentary about having a disability in the 30/40s..i hear folks way back then were big on equality for invalids.

 

 

Then why do all presidents have spin advisors, spokespeople, and media offices.  Controlling the media is not just about singling out a news network, but it includes filtering the information that is released, not actually answering the questions asked, not allowing follow up questions, and treating the media with disdain.  the only difference is how it is done.  If you follow the political science techniques of seasoned politicians it might not look so bad, or if you hit them head on like Trump does, you get heat.  I realize the left is in a tizzy over some reporter at a press conference getting disrespected, but I again ask, who cares.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Then why do all presidents have spin advisors, spokespeople, and media offices.  Controlling the media is not just about singling out a news network, but it includes filtering the information that is released, not actually answering the questions asked, not allowing follow up questions, and treating the media with disdain.  the only difference is how it is done.  If you follow the political science techniques of seasoned politicians it might not look so bad, or if you hit them head on like Trump does, you get heat.  I realize the left is in a tizzy over some reporter at a press conference getting disrespected, but I again ask, who cares.

there's a difference between controlling your statement/image in the media and controlling the media. you know that.

as far as the tizzy goes, i think you misunderstand the tizzy - but i get it, you don't care. why comment on it at all?

[Dashinka 23,211]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

there's a difference between controlling your statement/image in the media and controlling the media. you know that.

as far as the tizzy goes, i think you misunderstand the tizzy - but i get it, you don't care. why comment on it at all?

Because it is fun to see the Left now having to defend the fake news coming out of their beloved news organizations!

 

????

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Because it is fun to see the Left now having to defend the fake news coming out of their beloved news organizations!

 

????

only if you're delusional concerning what constitutes fake news.

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Because it is fun to see the Left now having to defend the fake news coming out of their beloved news organizations!

 

????

I'm trying to find the original article CNN ran following Buzzfeed's original article. I can't seem to find it so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I was under the impression that Buzzfeed ran a report that included details. CNN then ran an article stating that Obama and Trump had been briefed about the claims, but that they were unsubstantiated claims.

 

CNN didn't report anything fake? Trump and Obama were briefed about the dossier containing unsubstantiated claims. CNN just reported that. As far as I was aware they didn't actually give any details of the claims like Buzzfeed did. 

Does anyone have a link to the original article? 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

50 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm trying to find the original article CNN ran following Buzzfeed's original article. I can't seem to find it so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I was under the impression that Buzzfeed ran a report that included details. CNN then ran an article stating that Obama and Trump had been briefed about the claims, but that they were unsubstantiated claims.

 

CNN didn't report anything fake? Trump and Obama were briefed about the dossier containing unsubstantiated claims. CNN just reported that. As far as I was aware they didn't actually give any details of the claims like Buzzfeed did.

Does anyone have a link to the original article?

No but they reported that some guy had traveled somewhere but had to retract that, as they had the wrong name

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

No but they reported that some guy had traveled somewhere but had to retract that, as they had the wrong name

wrong again. common name, wrong guy.

 

the dossier had been around but media was sitting on it. buzzfeed took the plunge, other media outlets followed suit.

[bcking 3,157]

I think we just need to be consistent with what is considered "fake". 

 

Reporting on the existence of the documents, and reporting that both President Obama and President-Elect Trump were informed about the documents is NOT fake news. THe document exists, and they were both briefed on the contents.

 

I even would go so far as to say that actually mentioning what is in the document is not necessarily "fake news" as long as you make it clear that the claims are unsubstantiated. 

 

The only thing that would be "fake news" in this scenario would be reporting on the documents as if they are fact. To my knowledge CNN (Nor Buzzfeed) did that.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

26 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

wrong again. common name, wrong guy.

 

the dossier had been around but media was sitting on it. buzzfeed took the plunge, other media outlets followed suit.

Thats exactly what I said 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Thats exactly what I said 

I think Smile was saying that it was the right name, wrong guy. Instead of the wrong name, wrong guy. The name matched but it wasn't actually him.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

30 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think Smile was saying that it was the right name, wrong guy. Instead of the wrong name, wrong guy. The name matched but it wasn't actually him.

Thanks for clarifying.  The jest of what I was trying to say was they same. It made perfect sense when mansplained 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

47 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think we just need to be consistent with what is considered "fake". 

 

Reporting on the existence of the documents, and reporting that both President Obama and President-Elect Trump were informed about the documents is NOT fake news. THe document exists, and they were both briefed on the contents.

 

I even would go so far as to say that actually mentioning what is in the document is not necessarily "fake news" as long as you make it clear that the claims are unsubstantiated. 

 

The only thing that would be "fake news" in this scenario would be reporting on the documents as if they are fact. To my knowledge CNN (Nor Buzzfeed) did that.

 

Exactly !

It is beyond me that this is so hard for some people to grasp. If it was about Hillary it would have been headlines on Breitbart and Fox.
CNN always said it was not fact and that is what some here conveniently leave out and start spinning and doing the twist. Oh the adoring
Trumpettes is all I can say.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

Exactly !

It is beyond me that this is so hard for some people to grasp. If it was about Hillary it would have been headlines on Breitbart and Fox.
CNN always said it was not fact and that is what some here conveniently leave out and start spinning and doing the twist. Oh the adoring
Trumpettes is all I can say.

I think in most situations "unsubstantiated reports" are better left not reported on until they are "substantiated".

 

However I think in this situation you had both the current President and the President-Elect being briefed on the 'unsubstantiated' report. I think that was enough to make it news worthy. It still may not be true, but it was a big enough deal to tell the President about it.

[Inikamoze 86]

Wonder if his wife has been on a covert mission all these years to have the man in the most powerful position in the USA compromised. Wow she's waited a heck of a time if true and deserves her own medal!

all unsubstantiated of course....

[Dashinka 23,211]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 2:12 PM, Ebunoluwa said:

 

Exactly !

It is beyond me that this is so hard for some people to grasp. If it was about Hillary it would have been headlines on Breitbart and Fox.
CNN always said it was not fact and that is what some here conveniently leave out and start spinning and doing the twist. Oh the adoring
Trumpettes is all I can say.

That is how it works now, and it shows that there really is no unbiased media outlets anymore.  The media on one side will say something and leave out some facts, and the media that favors the other side will refute (fact check) them.  So that is the basis for saying it is possible for all outlets to distribute fake or incomplete news.  CNN, NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS do not have any more credibility than FNC or Briebart now.