The Terror of Fake News

[astralis]

pari,

That 'investigation' found nothing of the sort as there was no investigation. It was an analysis, presented publicly for political effect. Tell me about Saddam and WMD.

lol, an analysis "presented publicly for political effect" AFTER the supposed target of such a political effect was just elected..hahaha.

somehow Obama was devilishly clever enough to suborn the entire intelligence community but couldn't bother to get in the attack report in time, or simply get his puppet FBI director to shut up just before the election...;-)

[Wooglin]

i was addressing pari's post here:



and my response was an ODNI report that all the major US intel agencies-- not just "Brennan, a democratic appointment"-- said there was "hacking of the election", defined as Putin interfering for Trump. i did not address collusion because that's not what Pari was discussing.

so again, i repeat: if you're going to rudely interrupt a conversation, at least know what you're talking about.

Uh huh... and you conveniently ignored this part, to which he was responding.

there is currently an ongoing investigation involving all those agencies regarding the Trump candidacy and later administration's ties to Russia, to include the possibility of collusion.

The connection to Trump is pure political spin on your part.

If you don't like being called out for your bullshit then don't post on a public forum and then cry about it.

[astralis]

wooglin,

i honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. i've discussed both investigations at length now. not sure where i "conveniently ignored" anything.

[Wooglin]

So few are capable of having an honest discussion. It's a shame.

[astralis]

you forgot "and your mother smells of elderberries." :-)

[snapper]

Pretty sure Brennan was due at the public hearing that Nunes cancelled.

[Parihaka]

pari,



lol, an analysis "presented publicly for political effect" AFTER the supposed target of such a political effect was just elected..hahaha.

Yes, after he was elected and before he could take office. Nobody believed he could do it remember. You were still confident of a war party win right up til 10;30 that night. The assessment was a last desperate shot to delegitimize Trump, a campaign you're still running now despite coming up with nothing.

[Parihaka]

Uh huh... and you conveniently ignored this part, to which he was responding.




If you don't like being called out for your bullshit then don't post on a public forum and then cry about it.

He doesn't cry about it, he's here to proselytize.

[Parihaka]

Heh, loath her or despise her Ann Coulter can sure sum things up

The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team.

Edit to add: actually this is so funny it deserves full posting.
Ann Coulter at Breitbart

The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team.
Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election — even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine — has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.

But for now, let’s just consider the raw plausibility of the story.

The fact-less claim is that (1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and (2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who’d already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.

The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous “reset” button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium production, under Hillary’s careful management — in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! — LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! — because Trump referred to 20 percent of America’s “uranium,” not to 20 percent of America’s “uranium capacity.” This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.)

The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that’s only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia’s only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.

But let’s say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first.

Why would anyone, least of all trained spies, think that it would help Trump to release emails showing the DNC had its thumb on the scale against Bernie Sanders?

How was that supposed to work again? I forget.

Accepting everything else the most deranged Trump-hater believes, normal people lose the thread of the conspiracy at the moment when the Russians are supposed to have said to themselves, “HEY, I KNOW — LET’S TRY THIS!”

Even experts in American politics haven’t the first idea how to affect an election. The best minds of the GOP bet $140 million of their own money that Jeb! would be the nominee. (Maybe they should have hired Putin.)

Throughout the primaries, Democrats were openly praying that the GOP would nominate Trump. Democrats had the same hope in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. In 2008, Republicans hooted at the idea of Al Franken running for the U.S. Senate.

Days before the election, America’s premier journal of liberal opinion, The New York Times, gave Hillary a 91 percent chance of winning. The Princeton Election Consortium calculated her chances at 99 percent. The Huffington Post’s polling aggregator put Hillary’s odds at 98 percent.

But we’re supposed to believe that a country practiced in spycraft was confident that it not only knew what was likely to happen in a U.S. presidential election, but also knew how to swing it? And no one in Moscow thought to ask: “What will be the predictable, certain outcome of releasing the DNC’s ‘Get Bernie’ emails?”

The DNC leaks might have ended up being the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. What if they had pulled a Torricelli, and forced Hillary to drop out, so they could run Joe Biden instead? Biden is a lot more popular than Hillary!

Isn’t the more logical leaker someone within the DNC who’d had enough with David Brock and Debbie Wasserman Schultz steering the party into a ditch? The actual leaker probably thought: I’ve got to save the party! She’s going to destroy us!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, as well as his associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray, both say that the DNC emails came from a whistleblower within the DNC. Murray has even identified the precise location where a DNC insider passed him the emails — a park near American University.

Assange may be a misguided zealot, but neither his friends nor his enemies call him a liar. His image is very nearly the opposite: a self-righteousness fanatic — not a slippery con man.

Hey, did anyone else notice that last week, very quietly, every single staffer at the DNC was fired?

The claim that Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump is the sort of crackpot theory that can only be concocted after the fact.

They would prefer to say that North Korea or ISIS “hacked” our election and somehow installed Trump. But unfortunately, Trump has no business dealings with ISIS or the Pyongyang regime. He — or people he knows — have had some vague business dealings with Russia. So the left is stuck with its insane Russia conspiracy.

And now, just as the whole story is collapsing, their need is even more urgent, to distract from the Obama administration’s use of national security intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on domestic enemies like Donald Trump.

[DOR]

In order to take Ann Coulter seriously, one has to believe all the vast right-wing conspiracy theories of the past 25 years.
Every one, from "travel-gate" to the Clintons personally ordering multiple murders.

[m a x]

Re: The Terror of Fake News

[Parihaka]

In order to take Ann Coulter seriously, one has to believe all the vast right-wing conspiracy theories of the past 25 years.
Every one, from "travel-gate" to the Clintons personally ordering multiple murders.

You and Ann have something in common then. :-)

[JAD_333]

Those not steeped in American political history may think the recent uproar about fake news is a new phenomenon. It's not. In fact the much beloved Franklin Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression and WWII, may hold the title of the greatest enemy of the main stream media and ace manipulator of the news in relatively modern times. What he did and how he did it makes for fascinating reading. While some presidents after him, most notably Richard Nixon, sought ways to muzzle the press, by their time the blow back from the methods FDR and his allies employed prevented them from emulating him.

FDR's War Against the Press
Franklin Roosevelt had his own Breitbart, and radio was his Twitter.

David Beito from the May 2017 issue

Donald Trump's champions and critics agree: He is rewriting the relationship between the press and the presidency. On the pro-Trump side, Newt Gingrich claims that the president's "brilliant" use of Twitter allows him "very quickly over and over to set the agenda at almost no cost," while Press Secretary Sean Spicer says it gives him a "direct pipeline to the American people." Critics highlight how Trump sidelines the press by bullying his critics, rebuffing hard questions, and favoring sympathetic outlets such as Breitbart. They have expressed alarm about Trump's call to "open up" libel laws as a means to quash "horrible and false" stories.

Another president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, revised the media rules in equally profound ways. Like Trump, he feuded with the mainstream media; like Trump, he used a new medium as a direct pipeline to the people. He also used the government's machinery to suppress unfavorable coverage, a fate we hope to avoid in the age of Trump.

Manipulating the Media

Roosevelt, like Trump, had a good relationship with the press at the start of his public career. Journalists found him quotable and amusing. But by 1934 this honeymoon had frayed, and a year later it had given way to a war of words. Roosevelt complained constantly about the press's "poisonous propaganda." With a tone of mock sympathy, he reassured reporters that he understood they were not to blame, because publishers told them what to write.

In the 1936 election, Roosevelt claimed that 85 percent of the newspapers were against him. In the standard work on the subject, historian Graham J. White finds that the actual percentage was much lower and the print press generally gave FDR balanced news coverage, but most editorialists and columnists were indeed opposed to the administration. Convinced that the media were out to get him, Roosevelt warned in 1938 that "our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public, from the counting room. And I wish we could have a national symposium on that question, particularly in relation to the freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?"

Roosevelt's relationship with radio was warmer. The key distinction was that broadcasters operated in an entirely...

(rest or article here: http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/0...gainst-the-pre )

[Parihaka]

THe terror of live news, where your narative gets blown out of the water

[gunnut]

The answer is of course an official government news agency. Any medium/media which differs from the official news will be audited and disciplined. We must stamp out fake news and the detrimental effect they have on our gullible citizenry.