Errrr, umm, sorry 'bout that, *Marvin*.
Posted on 12/08/2017 11:04:48 PM PST by MarvinStinson
The media is having a rough week when it comes to reporting on the federal government's multiple ongoing Russia investigations. Three stories in the past seven days have crumbled under greater scrutiny.
Why it matters: In today's hyperpolarized world, "fake news" has become a refrain to describe stories that observers on both sides of the spectrum decide that they don't like. These reporting issues by esteemed media organizations give credence to that ignorance, which further damages the value of insightful, impactful reporting — especially when it comes to one of the biggest, most polarizing stories of our political age: the Russia probe.
The misses
Flynn's testimony:
Last Friday, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that President Trump, while still a candidate, directed him to contact Russian officials.
But later in the day, the network issued a "clarification" that the direction came when Trump was president-elect. That changed the impact of the story entirely as it's a common occurrence for presidential transition teams to reach out to foreign governments.
Deutsche Bank subpoena:
Reuters and Bloomberg both reported on Tuesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on accounts relating to President Trump and his family members — seemingly confirming that Mueller had expanded his probe to investigate the president's financial dealings. The WSJ defused that bombshell in a follow-up report stating that the subpoenas actually dealt with "people or entities close to Mr. Trump."
WikiLeaks emails:
CNN reported this morning that senior Trump campaign officials, including Trump himself, received an email from an unknown sender on September 4, 2016 that linked them to what could have been unreleased WikiLeaks documents.
WaPo issued their own report later in the afternoon that the email was actually sent on September 14 — and linked to a trove of documents that WikiLeaks had publicly released a day earlier.
The Press: “Where’s the Kaboom? I was expecting an earth-shattering Kaboom!”
Idiots!
Errrr, umm, sorry 'bout that, *Marvin*.
Don’t worry, these were just a fuse being lit. These were deliberate fake “leaks” that the press bit on hook, line, and sinker. The “boom” will be when the leakers are arrested.
“...which further damages the value of insightful, impactful reporting”
How about going back to who, what, when, why (if known, not guessed at).
Journalism no longer reports news, they use news to shape our society. And if the news does not fit their narrative they either ignore it or worse they twist it until it does.
Why should anyone believe anything news medias report, or for that matter anything anyone in government has to say. They have gotten away with lying so long we can just assume they are lying now.
The irony of it all. Shane does not even realize when he wrote the above he got to the root of the problem. Reporting is not suppose to be “insightful” since that requires the reporter to make an opinion on what is or is not worth reporting. Further “impactful” also implies anything that is not impactful is not worth reporting . . .“...which further damages the value of insightful, impactful reporting”
Journalism no longer reports news, they use news to shape our society. And if the news does not fit their narrative they either ignore it or worse they twist it until it does.
Why should anyone believe anything news medias report, or for that matter anything anyone in government has to say. They have gotten away with lying so long we can just assume they are lying now.The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.No one has time to report, or read about, what you had for breakfast today. Inevitably reporting has to be about things that matter to the reporter; he only hopes that it interests the reader/audience.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
And there is the problem - it is possible, even easy, to interest the public with things which are not in the public interest:
“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander HamiltonThere certainly is no shortage of people willing to " flatter [our] prejudices to betray [our] interests.” It’s who “liberals” are. And who journalists are, same difference.Journalists know that journalism is negative toward society: “If it bleeds, it leads.” Worse, knowing that, they yet claim that journalism is objective - which could only be true if “negativity is objectivity.” But “the conceit that 'negativity is objectivity’” is an excellent definition of cynicism. It is important to observe that nobody can be cynical about everything; cynicism towards society is not compatible with cynicism toward government. This is so because the response to any evil in society is, “There oughta be a law.” And you can’t promote indefinite expansion of laws without being naive - the opposite of cynical - about government.
Yes. But unfortunately there is that "The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough”thing going on . . .
The judge who recused in the Flynn Case was named to the FISA court in 2016. He did not say why he recused himself.
Stick him in a witness chair. He's obviously got some inside info.
Each of these News organizations and reporters are in a race ‘for the gold’
Bringing down President Trump.
The ultimate feather in their cap, more than a feather, a crown.
Used to be a reporter would require 2 sources of a story before it was published.
Today rumor, innuendo, speculation is sufficient for them.
They want to be The One so badly.
“journalist” = corrupt political shill willing to lie for the “cause”
l8r
And yet CNN soldiers on....
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.