This breakdown in editorial workflow disturbed the CNN executives who learned about it.”~~~~~~~~~~Really?
bingo
bookmark
.
Yea, right.
.
LOL x 1,000,000 on this one.
I don’t think there are enough LOLs.
It really is unfrickinbelievable.
I hope their advertisers drop like flies.
The midtown pizza parlor has openings.
3 janitors took the fall.
Thomas Frank!! LOL!!! About damn time!
bwa ha haaaa..... good riddance, but they would have to empty out CNN’s building to begin to build an honest news organization.
This is just a few miscreants falling on their swords to try to protect the rest of the organization.
The Scalp Count looks like it’s starting to move in Trump’s favor. IMHO, there are a lot democRATs and their complicit media lapdogs that are starting to see the pendulum begin to swing back with a passion and are saying to themselves, “Just walk away.”
Just fleeing a sinking ship is all...
They were probably facing massive lawsuits they would lose. The real reason they retracted.
btt
re. Eric Lichtblau, DC editor of the CNN Investigative Team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lichtblau
Controversy[edit]
On October 31, 2016, the New York Times published an article by Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers indicating that intelligence agencies believed that Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was not aimed at electing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[6] It was subsequently revealed that multiple United States intelligence agencies were conducting an investigation at the time into covert aid from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign.[7][8] This has led to criticism of the New York Times coverage of the election, and speculation that the Times reporting, and the Lichtblau article in particular, contributed to Trump’s victory.[9] On January 20, 2017, the New York Times published an article by the public editor acknowledging that the Times staff, including the editors and Lichtblau, had access to materials and details indicating that the Russian interference was aimed at electing Donald Trump, contradicting the October 31 Lichtblau article, and stating that “a strong case can be made that The Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had.”[10][11]
Daniel Pfeiffer, former senior advisor to president Barack Obama, characterized the decision not to publish the story while at the same time publishing many articles that fueled the Hillary Clinton email controversy as a “black mark” in the newspaper’s history.[12] New York Times editor Dean Baquet dismissed the controversy, stating that the public editor article is a “bad column” that comes to a “fairly ridiculous conclusion.”[13]
Shenanigans. Review by several departments would mean they couldn’t breathlessly break the latest leak from some “anonymous” source.
Ah yes Thomas Frank. The reason I no longer subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. He has a Ph.D. in history from the University of Chicago and as a contributor editor (or writer)
wrote a very favorable almost fawning article about Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the WSJ. After that I was done with that paper.
LOL - fired, right. Where are they working tomorrow? A Soros outfit? MSNBC? Washington Post? New York Times? DNC staffer? We know all of these guys are completely interchangeable and looked after.
In other news, Buzzfeed just added three staffers.
