WaPo calls out CNN for Fake News on Trump/Russia

Washington Post ran an article that appears to correct some erroneous reporting from CNN

A 2016 email sent to President Trump and top aides pointed the campaign to hacked documents from the Democratic National Committee that had already been made public by the group WikiLeaks a day earlier.

CNN originally published an article claiming the email was dated 4 September 2016, when it was actually 14 September, in their rush to provide some evidence of collusion, since there isn't any yet.

CNN article with correction

Washington (CNN)Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.

Those 10 days make a big difference because by 14 September 2016 pretty much everyone knew about the WikiLeaks release already. On 4 September, it could be interpreted as showing some degree of coordination between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks. With the correct information, it's essentially meaningless. They should have made a complete retraction, since there's really no story there at all with the changes.

CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.

How many times are they gonna get burned by these "sources" before they wise up? I'm not completely against anonymous sources, but journalists used to have high standards before using them. They would try to corroborate what they were being told through a more reliable source. Sometimes only an anonymous source would be used if the journalist had a long history with them and they'd never led them astray. Now the standard appears to be if it's bad for Trump, no verification required, print it. Same thing happened last week with the Flynn news.


ETA: Update: Apparently MSNBC's Ken Dilanian also claimed to have "confirmed the information" in CNN's original story. What a week. ABC, CNN, and NBC all embarrassed themselves.



In the video, the female anchor claims he confirmed the information (obviously being told this in her ear as they're throwing it to Dilanian), to which he replies "Yes that's right."

a reply to: face23785

Why would they wise up? This is mission accomplished. Their viewers either believe it or don't care CNN messed up. Win win for CNN.

I sourced numerous "corrections" to my liberal dad and he believes half of it is still true because that initial impression is stuck.

a reply to: face23785

I am waiting for CNN links to be flagged as 'fake news' on Facebook and Twitter. I mean I really don't think it will happen, but it would be what they deserve.

Journalists still do have high standards. It is now standard to be high on something when they write the articles.

a reply to: face23785

Thank you for that information. I was wondering why this CNN reporter sounded so let down, when she said that the email was the 14th instead of the 4th.

But still, The Washington Post has a lot of nerve attacking CNN as fake news. Its credibility isn't much better.

a reply to: face23785

Very: 'In a high degree, extremely; exceedingly;'
Fake: 'prepare or make (something specious, deceptive, or fraudulent)'
News: 'a report of a recent event; intelligence; information'

This is CNN to a tee - Trump called it right.

Update: Apparently MSNBC's Ken Dilanian also claimed to have "confirmed the information" in CNN's original story. What a week. ABC, CNN, and NBC all embarrassed themselves.



In the video, the female anchor claims he confirmed the information (obviously being told this in her ear as they're throwing it to Dilanian), to which he replies "Yes that's right."

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: face23785

Thank you for that information. I was wondering why this CNN reporter sounded so let down, when she said that the email was the 14th instead of the 4th.

But still, The Washington Post has a lot of nerve attacking CNN as fake news. Its credibility isn't much better.

Trump hasn't yet moved on the Bezos/Amazon antitrust charges he spoke of during the campaign. WaPo may well be trying to return to some manner of credibility to avoid giving Trump more reasons to actually pursue filing those charges.

a reply to: face23785

Oh, they confirmed it. Liberal confirmation bias is alive and well in corporate media.

Gotta love it when flop-house journalists go after each other.

"WaPo calls out CNN"



Not much else to say about that.

a reply to: face23785

It's almost sad. Trump calls them Fake News. They respond with a resoundng no we are not. Get caught peddling Fake News. The MSM is full of morons. Now you have validated Trump's claim. Let's wait who is getting suspended or fired next.

It's unbelievably easy for Trump. He does nothing and still they manage to fail.

originally posted by: face23785
Washington Post ran an article that appears to correct some erroneous reporting from CNN

A 2016 email sent to President Trump and top aides pointed the campaign to hacked documents from the Democratic National Committee that had already been made public by the group WikiLeaks a day earlier.

CNN originally published an article claiming the email was dated 4 September 2016, when it was actually 14 September, in their rush to provide some evidence of collusion, since there isn't any yet.

CNN article with correction

Washington (CNN)Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.

Those 10 days make a big difference because by 14 September 2016 pretty much everyone knew about the WikiLeaks release already. On 4 September, it could be interpreted as showing some degree of coordination between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks. With the correct information, it's essentially meaningless. They should have made a complete retraction, since there's really no story there at all with the changes.

CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.

How many times are they gonna get burned by these "sources" before they wise up? I'm not completely against anonymous sources, but journalists used to have high standards before using them. They would try to corroborate what they were being told through a more reliable source. Sometimes only an anonymous source would be used if the journalist had a long history with them and they'd never led them astray. Now the standard appears to be if it's bad for Trump, no verification required, print it. Same thing happened last week with the Flynn news.

ETA: Update: Apparently MSNBC's Ken Dilanian also claimed to have "confirmed the information" in CNN's original story. What a week. ABC, CNN, and NBC all embarrassed themselves.

In the video, the female anchor claims he confirmed the information (obviously being told this in her ear as they're throwing it to Dilanian), to which he replies "Yes that's right."

Did you catch the bit at the end of that where he says Wikileaks is just known to be a known Russian source of the leaks? He says that as a given fact with absolutely no evidence to back that assertion up. Why am I not surprised. If you are going to lie, you might as well double down on the lie.

Incredible becomes Incrubable

a reply to: xuenchen

Julian Assange has been ranting at CNN on twitter all day over this obvious fake news. Cnn barely gave a correction on the story and Assange has been calling them out.

twitter.com...

Julian Assange is trash, but this narrative of Wikileaks being a "Rusian Backed, Putin front" is straight lunacy

Brian Stelter
@brianstelter
A CNN spokeswoman says there will not be disciplinary action in this case because, unlike with Brian Ross/ABC, @MKRaju followed the editorial standards process. Multiple sources provided him with incorrect info.

Some Editorial process you got there CNN. What is it ? A couple of monkeys with a "Publish it " button?
They sound like Conyers and Franken.......we didn't do anything wrong but here's the correction. Were sorry you don't quite remember the event the same way we do.

I bet ATT will be more than happy now to unload CNN to get their deal with Time-Warner approved.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Exactly right. It's not a mistake that all of this misreporting keeps happening.

In my view, it's being done on purpose.