It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks Reveals Jaw-Dropping Email That Proves Failing New York Times & Hillary Collusion

page: 5
110
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The evidence is the NYT saying it. Along with other publications. In fact, you have argued that the evidence is just administrative and no big deal. The US government gets consulted before the story runs. Stalin would be proud.




posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Scott Shanes response:



The NYT's has to somehow explain how and why telling the PR guy the topics of each day's release contributed to the redaction effort, everything else remains irrelevant.



edit on 1-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Thanks for reminding us there is no yarn too stupid for right wingers to believe. Thanks for the giggles. a reply to: EvidenceNibbler



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

The evidence is the NYT saying it. Along with other publications. In fact, you have argued that the evidence is just administrative and no big deal. The US government gets consulted before the story runs.


It is no big deal. It is not uncommon for the media to communicate with the government to ensure classified or sensitive material is not disclosed.

That is reasonable practice.

If they did not do so, people would claim they were traitors for disclosing that info.



Stalin would be proud.


Shameful hyperbole.

You know better.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Make sure you dont get someone killed or something? Sure, thats procedural amd acceptable.

That isnt what happened here. What happened here is that the NYT tipped them off to an otherwise secret production schedule for stories that were inflammatory to Hillary and her team.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Make sure you dont get someone killed or something? Sure, thats procedural amd acceptable.


Ok. Glad we can agree there.



That isnt what happened here. What happened here is that the NYT tipped them off to an otherwise secret production schedule for stories that were inflammatory to Hillary and her team.


So they told them the stories they were going to publish, in relation to the cables that were being released, but not the actual content of the stories, correct? Ok. That is different than asking permission or working in cahoots with them.

Not sure what in the email shows they were concerned about what was or was not inflammatory to Hillary and the SD.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Production schedule by region.

That is the information it seems was being shared. There may be other info shared, but thats not what is included here. Nonetheless...passing an otherwise secret production schedule to the target of an investigative story of when stories about said target are being published...you really dont see a problem with that?

Maybe not a legal problem insomuch as a blow to the credibility of the NYT, and a clue to the corruption of a former US official.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



There may be other info shared, but thats not what is included here


Other info that was not shared, or no evidence of it being so, is the content of the stories.

Kind of hard to say they were helping them do damage control if they did not know the specifics of the damage.



you really dont see a problem with that?


No. As long as the SD is not dictating what they can or cannot publish, I don't care.



Maybe not a legal problem insomuch as a blow to the credibility of the NYT, and a clue to the corruption of a former US official.


So standard practice and courtesy shown towards the nation's security is a blow to credability?

Also, what corruption are you speaking of? I see no clues to it, let alone it being true.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: Pyle

It's not propaganda because it is true. Hillary is, has been, and will always be a lying sack of shlt. The hyperventilating left is freaking out because they've had their psychotropic love fest with Obama's handouts come to a crashing halt and they can't handle the new reality they no longer matter.

No amount of screaming at the sky (yeah...you people actually did this), no amount of denial, no amount of fake news, no amount of telling yourself "it's not real" is going to change the fact you are now marginalized. And for the next 7 years no less.

Just wait...it's going to get sooooooooo much worse for the hyperventilating left.



So you do or do not think its normal for journalist to contact subjects of their stories before they post them?


Your question is baited just like a liberal journalists' would be. In the context of topic of the OP it's underhanded and the intent is very clear. She was given ample time to spin away so as to minimize the news articles. You can deny this happened all you want but it is crystal clear what the intent was and what actually happened.

To answer your question in a general sense, no, it is not unusual for a journalist to contact the subject of their stories, however, typically these are one time stories and not years of biased coverage allowing one particular subject the ability to spin negative stories. This is right up there with the complicit Donna Brazile and her giving HRC the questions in advance of the Town Hall meeting.

It continues to amaze me liberals cannot clearly see how biased the MSM is towards liberal politicians as a whole. In the grand scheme of negative news coverage the overwhelming percentage of negative news coverage of conservatives vs liberals isn't even debatable. It's the way it has always been and it's the way it will always be. I've accepted that for a long time now.

However, I won't allow liberals to deflect from the fact they are and have been deceitful with their consistent misrepresentation of the right or anything that does not align with their socialist mind controlled mentality.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: bearclan

lol...see ya. Enjoy Trump as your president for the next 7 years.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Its not national security to tip of someone about the relase schedule of damaging information.

You are using it as a red herring.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Nonetheless...passing an otherwise secret production schedule to the target of an investigative story of when stories about said target are being published...you really dont see a problem with that?

Maybe not a legal problem insomuch as a blow to the credibility of the NYT, and a clue to the corruption of a former US official.


Even Wikileaks was ok with giving 48 hours notice so State could reply to detailed questions:


twitter.com...

But somehow giving a max of an extra 120 hours notice of a simple broad overview of the areas covered by the release is a huge deal?

If your problem is giving ANY advanced notice to State before it was published, you should be equally upset with Wikileaks for allowing 48 hours advance notice.
edit on 1-1-2018 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Its not national security to tip of someone about the relase schedule of damaging information.

You are using it as a red herring.


I never said it was.

Again, all we have is a schedule of release days for certain topics. Nothing else. No info on what would be disclosed about those specific topics and no direction from the SD as to what they could, or could not publish.

So what are we complaining about again?



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Also, how exactly used Hillary this "insiderinfo" for her alleged 'spin'?

 


I dunno folks, but I'm not so insecure that I'll hang at her lips to give her the slightest opportunity. The mere possibility to use this for spinnings proves nothing.
And I wont take someones word for it, that all you Americans are easily swayed with any manipulations of that sort. Especially not, when the author of those words can't see the irony in pinning a Russian propagandists ad-hom comment regarding propaganda.

Frankly? This is an utterly moronic article to run a slighty yawn dropping non-story with.

edit on 1-1-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I just want to thank the OP for proving wikileaks is now without a doubt nothing more than a right wing propaganda mouthpiece.

I have yet to see their "spin" layed out in such a obvious manner. You talk about the deep state? The actual one is right here. In front of everybody.




posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
I just want to thank the OP for proving wikileaks is now without a doubt nothing more than a right wing propaganda mouthpiece.

I have yet to see their "spin" layed out in such a obvious manner. You talk about the deep state? The actual one is right here. In front of everybody.



I love how anytime facts about how deceitful and complicit liberals are it's labeled "right wing propaganda".

Calling it right wing propaganda doesn't make it so but denying it as truth only leads you to more Prozac.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

You laugh but there are many people that I know that have not woken up to the media propaganda machine.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bearclan

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The DNC house of cards is crumbling fast.
The only way they can clean up this mess is total amnesia striking the American public.
Time to take out the trash and put it where it belongs.


The beauty of this is, the DNC is can commit murder on the street in front of faux news cameras but the public will be out in droves voting dem because of the repubs and Trump. Trump will be cancer to anyone claiming association with him, have already seen it happen when he endorsed a couple of guys, people who should have won didn't because Trump endorsed them.



Well BC, the Cherokee have the Bear clan I am a brother-in-law.

I want a grand jury to review the details, unredacted, and decide if charges are appropriate before I will be happy with any of these two evils that attempt to own us as their toys.
I believe you have not one thing right there about how most feel about the results from DJT. It is because of DJT they will vote DJT. He is NOT the DNC or the RNC criminals if he is one too

If you treat the public funds like it is your plaything as the DNC and RNC do, you get push-back from the middle and lower classes. People looking for work or a better life, happily are voting for candidates like Reagan and Trump. Then they do it again and watching them winning in landslides on their second election.

The DNC for one, truly needs to die and never come back. The leaders need to be banished to a remote gray bar motel. They are charlatans and treasonous. The RINO's are enablers as they are culpable, like Corker with the Iran deal, and other examples probably coming to your minds now.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
AND

After 8 years of righting the track, the DNC and the RINO's undermine the Republic again and escape prison. It is a dangerous cycle that leads to Gubment sanctioned murder of it's citizens al la Pol Pot, Stalin and China even today. We have to solve it soon and DJT is the band aide we have, like it or not. (Here is where my thoughts would've chanted melodically Ron Paul, Ron Paul. Too late for that Paul and his son is not him, Ron for sure is to old now......).


edit on 2-1-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

M.y problem with this is that the stories beimg referenced were about Hillary. It wasnt some routine administrative article, or an expose on government. It was relating to alleged crimes by Hillary, and she was given a preview amd opportunity to redact prior to it being run.

But that aside, i find it indefensible that our government would be given a chance to review media stories prior to beimg issued. The headline here should read, "US government under Obama exerts control over media and creates an advertising supported propaganda machine."

This isnt fake news. It really happened. The government influences media directly in the USA. Our press is obviously not "free".


I sure agree with you , and add we have a big problem. This is evidence of the Orwellian government we were warned would arrive by 1984.



new topics

top topics



 
110
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join