Posted on 10/19/2016 5:58:30 AM PDT by American72
From: Tapper, Jake [mailto:Jake.Tapper@abc.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:07 AM To: Faiz Shakir Cc: Lenzner, Emily A; Schneider, Jeffrey W Subject:
Re: following up Cc: John Podesta Jeffrey Schneider Emily Lenzner
Off the record Faiz -- As I told you many times off the record, both in email and on the phone, the premise of your story is just false. You nonetheless wrote it anyway, indicating quite clearly that you don't care about accuracy or the truth in your reporting.
You wanted to push a narrative that I was used by the right wing media, so you wrote what you wrote regardless of the facts. That's shoddy journalism, and it's simply not reflective of the truth. As I told you, I heard of Lauria's claims when I overheard Ann Compton talking with someone at ABC News radio about Lauria's interview.
That was the last I heard of it. I was interested in speaking with someone representing the hedge funds since President Obama spoke so strongly against them. Friday I was busy with Justice Souter's story, so I didn't get a chance to look into it. On Saturday, I found Lauria's interview on the WJR-AM website. I looked into Lauria, found him to be a credible voice, a leading bankruptcy attormey who indeed had represented the firm in question. Moreover, he had recently given $10,000 to the DSCC so he had no discernible partisan motives.
reached out to the White House, they denied Lauria's story, which we gave prominence in the story. Nothing in your story about my reporting on this matter is accurate. No one pressured me, no one peddled anything to me, and no one reached out to me to cover this. Indeed, the first I heard of Mark Levin pushing this story was on your post. The fact that you don't mention Lauria's giving money to Democrats is quite telling. This is inaccurate and you should be ashamed to have written it after I told you what happened. Jake
________________________________ From: Faiz Shakir To: Tapper, Jake Sent: Mon May 04 09:53:50 2009 Subject: RE: following up here's the story. feel free to let me know what I got wrong (of course, I'm always happy to print an on the record response from you): http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/right-wing-radio-tapper/
‘...by the right wing media...’
Who would that be...talk radio? Theres certainly no TV media that could be described that way.
The think progress guy accuses Mark Levin in another email.
Actually, this is the perfect opportunity to publicly verify Wikileaks’ accuracy. Just ask Tapper if he really sent that email.
2009
ABC was not getting mad about dems making up stories.
“he had recently given $10,000 to the DSCC so he had no discernible partisan motives.”
By giving money to the dscc, Tapper was establishing his (Tapper’s) bona fides about his source, which obviously was partisan but partisan the correct way.
Fazir is simply the most basic of attack dog thugs – anyone who criticizes the regime must be attacked ie Himmler attacking Rohm for being a threat to the regime. This is internecine back biting. Tapper is as filthy as all the rest of them. Tapper’s crime here is accidental semi journalism.
It’s all about keeping the cattle in line
“Accidental semi Journalism”....lol.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think that you could take some barber from Mobile, a butcher from Austin, and a transmission mechanic from Butte, and form a top-rate nightly news team for ABC.
It would be interesting to just go and grab a couple of regular people and let them write the news for each night and see the results. With these losers, we already know they can’t do the job.
???????....WTH?.................
For these days, a refresher
From https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
...By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses.
But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself...
Coincidentally, they would also be better as President, VP, and Speaker of the House.
For sure....
He means he doesn’t like it when someone does to him what he does to everyone else...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.