CNN write blatantly false and dangerous article

[DitkasSausage]

So CNN wrote an article that Trump mishandled top secret information so badly that the CIA had to pull operatives out of Russia. It not only turns out that this story might have been "liberal bias"... but that it is provable that it is false, and that they intentionally lied about it, AND it put CIA assets currently in Russia, in jeopardy.

The CIA has since released, in response to this insane article, that the assets were ACTUALLY pulled out of Russia prior to Trump taking office because of all of the false media reporting on Russian election interference. This article has since put Russia on the lookout for any "mishandled top secret material by Trump". CNN actually caused a cyber battle by reporting blatantly false information, when in reality it was their own network that caused the pullout of CIA operatives.

CNN is trash... actually... they are worse. I've been VERY against the president saying that the media is the "enemy of the people". We do not need that rhetoric from our president. Are MSNBC, ABC, and CBS biased? Yes... absolutely... and it is on the viewer to discern what they are willing to intellectually digest. CNN is something else... they subvert the intelligence agency, pushing false narratives so regularly now that our enemies have been emboldened. I would say that his assessment of CNN is accurate that they are, in fact, an enemy of the people. Their press passes should be revoked, and FEC should revoke their journalist credentials as a company at this time. They have proven, repeatedly, that they do not take the responsibility of being part of the free press of the US seriously. These are becoming unhinged and dangerous people pushing propaganda we've never seen in our lifetime. It isn't just one or two stories here and there... it is a concerted effort to attack America, it's principles, and its authority, purely based on their deep rooted hatred of our president.

I do not have ONE authoritarian bone in my body. I'm a libertarian in almost every sense of the word. I hate government action into the private sector in almost EVERY instance. In this case, the government needs to disband CNN. They are becoming a danger to the US. I feel very extremist saying this... and I'm not an extremist person in any way... it has gotten THAT bad.

[DitkasSausage]

I should also add, that CNN's reporting was SOOO bad that even the NYT came out and attacked it as false and dangerous. I assure you... the NYT hates Trump almost more than anyone... so if the NYT is attacking CNN over this article... it wasn't just bad, it was blatantly obvious that it was a malicious attack.

[Moe the Crow]

I should also add, that CNN's reporting was SOOO bad that even the NYT came out and attacked it as false and dangerous. I assure you... the NYT hates Trump almost more than anyone... so if the NYT is attacking CNN over this article... it wasn't just bad, it was blatantly obvious that it was a malicious attack.

They can start calling Trump a fascist for calling them fake news when they stop jumping the gun and printing unverifiable/false stories.

The press are doing this to themselves.

I think with the internet and the explosion of "news" outlets the competition for scoops and clicks is so fierce they can't help themselves.

The TDS doesn't help. I think the people that normally would be gatekeepers are suffering from and it's blotting out what they learned in journalism school.

[WrongBaldy]

real enemy of the people

[Moe the Crow]

real enemy of the people

I get what you're saying. That term is pretty unambiguous and dangerous but fake/unverified news is very dangerous too.

[BPF2]

I was listening to these report this morning. I'm with you in that I am more libertarian and not at all authoritarian. I believe strongly in freedom of the press and the need for press to protect their sources. But at what point do they cross the line and cease to be considered free press? Or should that protection be limited?Printing or reporting blatantly false stories like this, especially ones that get into national security and intelligence arenas? When the NYT outed Valerie Plame, there was an uproar and Scooter Libby was revealed as the source. Is this different?

What about Lawrence O'Donnell and his easily verifiable report on Russian oligarch's cosigning a Trump loan? He retracted, but even the retraction was weak. Basically said he reported it too soon - we don't know if the information was accurate, but it shouldn't have been reported. WTF kind of retraction is that? Might as well give a wink and a nod as you say it.

I would like to believe that these "journalists" would stop taking these "sources" at their word and take the rigorous steps to verify anything they're told by them. But I just don't see it happening. It would be nice if there were a reliable independent board or committee of some sort that would come out against reports like these and inadequate retractions like these. Force these organizations to take some responsibility for their reporting. I do like Media Buzz with Howie Kurtz on Fox News. He seems pretty genuine, allows both sides of stories. But only one segment of the population would bother to watch him.

[ravenmaniac4life]

I was listening to these report this morning. I'm with you in that I am more libertarian and not at all authoritarian. I believe strongly in freedom of the press and the need for press to protect their sources. But at what point do they cross the line and cease to be considered free press? Or should that protection be limited?Printing or reporting blatantly false stories like this, especially ones that get into national security and intelligence arenas? When the NYT outed Valerie Plame, there was an uproar and Scooter Libby was revealed as the source. Is this different?

What about Lawrence O'Donnell and his easily verifiable report on Russian oligarch's cosigning a Trump loan? He retracted, but even the retraction was weak. Basically said he reported it too soon - we don't know if the information was accurate, but it shouldn't have been reported. WTF kind of retraction is that? Might as well give a wink and a nod as you say it.

I would like to believe that these "journalists" would stop taking these "sources" at their word and take the rigorous steps to verify anything they're told by them. But I just don't see it happening. It would be nice if there were a reliable independent board or committee of some sort that would come out against reports like these and inadequate retractions like these. Force these organizations to take some responsibility for their reporting. I do like Media Buzz with Howie Kurtz on Fox News. He seems pretty genuine, allows both sides of stories. But only one segment of the population would bother to watch him.

I don't think these are "bad sources."

This is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by the DNC.

The CIA has been doing shit like this in other countries for years...especially during the Cold War. Once a blatantly false story hits the social media airwaves...there's no retracting it. It's out there. People believe what they want to believe in this day and age...facts be damned. A "news story" that is a fabricated lie is strategic, and the Left/MSM knows that they can push BS and enough of their cultists will believe it no matter what. See Russia hoax.

[blah3]

I was listening to these report this morning. I'm with you in that I am more libertarian and not at all authoritarian. I believe strongly in freedom of the press and the need for press to protect their sources. But at what point do they cross the line and cease to be considered free press? Or should that protection be limited?Printing or reporting blatantly false stories like this, especially ones that get into national security and intelligence arenas? When the NYT outed Valerie Plame, there was an uproar and Scooter Libby was revealed as the source. Is this different?
.

Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie plame.

[DitkasSausage]

Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie plame.

Actually... that is entirely correct. Libby did not leak Valerie Plame. The New York Times did. This is a perfect example of the media's horrible bias. Libby WAS a source to the NYT for information... the NYT actually used his information to get close to figuring out who he was talking about. Valerie Plame was actually outed during the congressional hearing into Libby, and was IMMEDIATELY extradited during the hearing once her name was spoken (which nobody was expecting).

Look how the NYT helped out their source on this: They immediately handed all information on him over to congress. Delivered tapes of private conversations they had with him. Revealed his name, his sources, and all work they were able to do to put together assets based on his information. The NYT ROLLED on him HARD. Meanwhile, McCabe & Comey were OBVIOUSLY sources for NYT stories. Literally, the only people it could have been was one of those two. We will NEVER figure out which one because the NYT protects them to the grave. See a double standard there? If you are in a republican administration, the press will not protect you as a source. If you are fighting against republicans, they will keep you out of jail to the bitter end.

[blah3]

Actually... that is entirely correct. Libby did not leak Valerie Plame. The New York Times did. This is a perfect example of the media's horrible bias. Libby WAS a source to the NYT for information... the NYT actually used his information to get close to figuring out who he was talking about. Valerie Plame was actually outed during the congressional hearing into Libby, and was IMMEDIATELY extradited during the hearing once her name was spoken (which nobody was expecting).

Look how the NYT helped out their source on this: They immediately handed all information on him over to congress. Delivered tapes of private conversations they had with him. Revealed his name, his sources, and all work they were able to do to put together assets based on his information. The NYT ROLLED on him HARD. Meanwhile, McCabe & Comey were OBVIOUSLY sources for NYT stories. Literally, the only people it could have been was one of those two. We will NEVER figure out which one because the NYT protects them to the grave. See a double standard there? If you are in a republican administration, the press will not protect you as a source. If you are fighting against republicans, they will keep you out of jail to the bitter end.

Nope, still not accurate. Richard armitage was the first source of Valerie plame.

[DitkasSausage]

Nope, still not accurate. Richard armitage was the first source of Valerie plame.

Thanks Blah... I actually did look that up. It's hard to tell because of all the false reporting on that story...

[DitkasSausage]

I was listening to these report this morning. I'm with you in that I am more libertarian and not at all authoritarian. I believe strongly in freedom of the press and the need for press to protect their sources. But at what point do they cross the line and cease to be considered free press? Or should that protection be limited?Printing or reporting blatantly false stories like this, especially ones that get into national security and intelligence arenas? When the NYT outed Valerie Plame, there was an uproar and Scooter Libby was revealed as the source. Is this different?

What about Lawrence O'Donnell and his easily verifiable report on Russian oligarch's cosigning a Trump loan? He retracted, but even the retraction was weak. Basically said he reported it too soon - we don't know if the information was accurate, but it shouldn't have been reported. WTF kind of retraction is that? Might as well give a wink and a nod as you say it.

I would like to believe that these "journalists" would stop taking these "sources" at their word and take the rigorous steps to verify anything they're told by them. But I just don't see it happening. It would be nice if there were a reliable independent board or committee of some sort that would come out against reports like these and inadequate retractions like these. Force these organizations to take some responsibility for their reporting. I do like Media Buzz with Howie Kurtz on Fox News. He seems pretty genuine, allows both sides of stories. But only one segment of the population would bother to watch him.

You are making the assumption that there ARE even sources. I'm starting to think that these are just story-line narratives that they are making up to keep vicious allegations alive heading into elections. There is literally zero evidence that Trump was involved in ANY support from Russia or Putin. None. One of the largest political gatherings organized by Russia was an anti-Trump rally that had celebrities there. I've even taken the most liberal spun version of this taking place for people that might have missed this last-page news: https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...rth-carolina-6

They mention the Trump rallies but seem to forget that the numbers of attendees were under 30 to most of those events, but then there is this nugget: "On November 12, the Russians helped coordinate an anti-Trump rally that drew as many as 25,000 people, according to NBC News" Fatty McGee (aka: Michael Moore) was front and center at that one! Notice he's sort of taken a back seat on being so visually vocal about his Trump stupidity... this is why.

Trump received zero money from Russia. None. Hillary, meanwhile, was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars plus via the Clinton Global Initiative Cash Grab from our enemies. She also had an ex-British intelligence official buy Russian information so she could have a crap dossier made.

There is STACKS of evidence against the DNC colluding with foreign entities including John Kerry (an un-elected, serving in no government position) going to Iran to discuss our current sanctions. You have Feinstein going to Syria on a "unrecorded meeting" to discuss our positions on Syria. These are clear violations of people ACTUALLY breaking the laws...

What do we get from the current toilet bowl called CNN? 3 years of anti-Trump propaganda stating he's in bed with the Russians... it is all a total farce.