When Journalists Cry Wolf

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is, no such headline exists in the MSM.

You guys are not ignorant now after all, as you know I was going to find quotes, right?
Read and weep:

www.dailykos.com...
"This, then, would be the precise sort of "collusion" with foreign intelligence efforts that probes of the Trump campaign's association with Russian election hacks have been exploring."

nymag.com...

"that U.S. investigators “have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.” "

www.newsweek.com...
"Below is a new timeline of publicly reported events of Donald J. Trump’s acts of accommodation toward Russia since the U.S. presidential election."


nymag.com...
"What’s new is that explicit evidence of collusion may now extend to the Trump campaign itself."

NOW DENY AWAY for your lying MSM.

You still have not provided a headline nor sentence from within an MSM article that states that Trump colluded with Russia. You are only finding that his campaign or people within his campaign are under investigation... which they are, so there's no lies.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is, no such headline exists in the MSM.

You guys are not ignorant now after all, as you know I was going to find quotes, right?
Read and weep:

www.dailykos.com...
"This, then, would be the precise sort of "collusion" with foreign intelligence efforts that probes of the Trump campaign's association with Russian election hacks have been exploring."

nymag.com...

"that U.S. investigators “have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.” "

www.newsweek.com...
"Below is a new timeline of publicly reported events of Donald J. Trump’s acts of accommodation toward Russia since the U.S. presidential election."


nymag.com...
"What’s new is that explicit evidence of collusion may now extend to the Trump campaign itself."

NOW DENY AWAY for your lying MSM.

You still have not provided a headline nor sentence from within an MSM article that states that Trump colluded with Russia. You are only finding that his campaign or people within his campaign are under investigation... which they are, so there's no lies.

Got ya coming and going and you still think you are right?

I guess you can feign ignorance on this one but you are caught in your own written words that allows the neutrals to make up their own minds if MSM people called it "Trump is in collusion with RUSSIA!!".

IMHO, The Bubble people, living in a bubble, are in for a rough ride in the next 20 years or so.....

a reply to: Justoneman

Just give it up man. You won't win this one.

These people who deny, deny, deny, and accept lie lie lie are destined to be led by the nose The MSM decides who is good and who is bad with the bias of their pay masters. They are as if a pack of wolves with a wounded animal and not at all about what the facts are anymore.

Misinformed are the BLM, misinformed global warmist, misinformed Bernie Sanders voters and then the general public realizing they are being lied to, all lead to misinformed reactions. MSM owes us raw data and not opinions cloaked as 'news'.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is, no such headline exists in the MSM.

You guys are not ignorant now after all, as you know I was going to find quotes, right?
Read and weep:

www.dailykos.com...
"This, then, would be the precise sort of "collusion" with foreign intelligence efforts that probes of the Trump campaign's association with Russian election hacks have been exploring."

nymag.com...

"that U.S. investigators “have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.” "

www.newsweek.com...
"Below is a new timeline of publicly reported events of Donald J. Trump’s acts of accommodation toward Russia since the U.S. presidential election."


nymag.com...
"What’s new is that explicit evidence of collusion may now extend to the Trump campaign itself."

NOW DENY AWAY for your lying MSM.

Good articles - thanks for that. They outline the current collection of purported evidence without drawing any definitive conclusions. Good reporting.

a reply to: redtic

Are these articles fair? Do they tell the other side of the story? Do they suppress counter evidence? Do they quote-mine? They do. So how is that good reporting? By what standards is that good reporting?

a reply to: Justoneman

You can't seem to produce an example of any lie though. Reporting on the investigation into collusion is not the same thing as stating that Trump colluded with Russia.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Justoneman

Just give it up man. You won't win this one.

Right and no matter what the truth is or is not in that ones eyes.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Justoneman

Just give it up man. You won't win this one.

Right and no matter what the truth is or is not in that ones eyes.

You haven't provided a single example of MSM claiming that Trump colluded with Russia.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Justoneman

Just give it up man. You won't win this one.

Right and no matter what the truth is or is not in that ones eyes.

You haven't provided a single example of MSM claiming that Trump colluded with Russia.

Like the Sun didn't come up?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, I'm really interested to see an example of what you would consider good reporting on this subject. Can you provide one?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don't understand? The press is under attack by the administration. You don't understand that this has been a whisper building to a crescendo for years? You don't understand how Trump is fomenting outright hostility against the press and his supporters are lapping it up like kittens with milk? Milk isn't good for kitties though.

I think you understand all too well. It reminds me of your outrage that people protested Milo and Coulter (before it turned violent). Free speech seems to end for you when people vocalize disagreement with other speakers. I don't agree with trying to get Trump banned from twitter but I hardly think it was a serious call. Funny how Trump and supporters get to use that continuously huh?

I think a journalist is perfectly entitled to call attacks on the press un-American. It is. Saying so is also free speech.

It would be one thing if the administration was attacking the MSM for fair critisim. However, we've seen the MSM attack the the President via his mental health, for example, being unlicensed or trained psychiatrists. And those that are, are breaking the Goldwater Rule. Other examples include the various attacks on FLOTUS and Barron.

But the left lap it up like kittens.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Lab4Us

The dossier was always reported as iffy. There was no major outlet that I can recall claiming that Comey would testify that Trump was under sole investigation.

But from an honest press, if iffy, why report it? There used to be a policy that a story had to be thoroughly vetted before being published/reported. Seems that is no longer the case and would be another big thing that would go a long way in fixing the problem.

Whether it gets verified or not, it's existence alone is news. It's either real which is a bomb shell or it's fake and a British spy was working to derail the GOP nominee at someone's behest.

Now, do you believe that would get reported on? Because that's awfully similar to the Russian narrative.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Jonjonj

I've seen evidence of desire to inflict violence on the press and leftists so... the press has to bad for that, right?

Evidence of desire.

Whereas video proof exists of the left actually inflicting violence, damage, and hate.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People, ie the Media, who live in glass houses shouldn't be shocked that people throw stones at them from time to time. Especially when they get themselves caught in repeated falsehoods and unverified statements that turn out to be wrong. Basic journalistic procedures would prevent their glass from being broken.

They scoff at the importance and foundations of their own craft for profits and other gains. It would all end if they returned to their principles, which are currently floating somewhere in the wind. The importance of an informed public is no longer something they hold to.

Oh the irony.

Funny how the White House, Mr Trump, has denied the press entry to the White House in the past. Claimed fake news before any investigation.

He's a BS artist and not even a good one, nitpicking media outlets and stories that favour him and denouncing anything else as fake news.

He hasn't helped his situation at all, his attitude stinks and in his tiny little brain he thinks all the media is against him, except the likes of Fox and Breitbart, of which both are dung pushers anyways.

That being said, watching 20 minutes of any mainstream media originating from the US is like scrubbing your eyes with a brillo pad and stabbing your ears with a screwdriver. Normally it's difficult to do that pat and rub thing, but not in front of CNN or Fox News.

Again Trump is a lying BS artist, I'm not taking sides... Just pointing out the hypocrisy of this partisan nonsense that always inundates ATS. Who ordered government agencies to not talk about global warming? Who constantly makes crap up on Twitter? Who refuses to work with the press because "they're out to get me"?

The man should be working with the press, all of them. Regardless of their political slant... Of course, I also believe that the press should be nonpartisan.

But let's face it, your MSN is awash with partisanship. Wishing it was not so is like urinating into the wind.

originally posted by: redtic
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, I'm really interested to see an example of what you would consider good reporting on this subject. Can you provide one?

You said those articles were good reporting. Again, by what standard are they good reporting?

a reply to: RAY1990

It's not about taking sides. Trump is not a journalist. The press are not running the country.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, people with similar Twitter feeds like to express themselves as independent journalists, amateur ones?

Who said the press runs the country or are attempting to?

All they do is paint images in our brains, if people are too thick to paint their own images then one can only hope the press are non-partisan and have some morality about them.

It's not the case though is it?

Maybe if the press had more accessibility in order to report more accurately on political issues then their wouldn't be so much of a problem.

But Trump actually has a little knowledge of how to control a narrative, via what people see. Gosh I've seen how Americans get so wound up over WWE, it's fake, it's acting.

Just lap that milk up kitty, it might rot your gut but it just tastes sooo good.

a reply to: RAY1990

I was saying that Trump and the media are not analogous.

More accessibility? They have plenty.

a reply to: RAY1990

Who said the press runs the country or are attempting to?

Well, CNN is threatening the person who made the CNN wrestling gif with doxing if they ever do it again.

Think about that, a media outlet is threatening a private citizen's right to free expression.

Sure seems to me like this member of the press (if you still consider CNN press) is attempting to run that person, who's to say they will stop there?