Probably true. Also, I think it’s likely that the media tend to believe that Trump is in fact guilty of all these things, so it makes reporting on them seem more credible. If they were reporting on similar “bombshell” allegations about Obama (for example) they would be much more cautious.
I agree if that’s the case. Similar to how O’Keefe’s agent was outed.
That said, I think it’s unlikely that these sources were deliberately misleading the press. The date of these emails is a black-and-white factual matter, which was going to come out if inaccurate. Anyone faking that would have to anticipate that it would backfire. My guess would be that those sources were not independent but relied on each other.
ISTM that it’s been other media outlets doing the correcting, not the original sources themselves.
What is your analysis showing that the media is less cautious about stories related to the President and his administration now than they were when Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al. were President?
We were discussing the fact that the media has had to walk back several supposed bombshell stories recently, all of which were anti-Trump. Question was why this is so.
The media makes mistakes and retractions all the time.
It’s part of living in this world and reality, mistakes are made.
If you are claiming that the only mistakes and retractions that have been made in recent times have been anti-trump, you would be incorrect.
If you are making the claim that the only mistakes and retractions that you have heard of in recent times have been anti-trump, that may very well be true, but it says more about the power of confirmational bias than it does about the media.
It doesn’t seem like you’re following the discussion either.
The guy who made this claim is not me, it’s a guy named Glenn Greenwald, cited a few posts back. I don’t recall having heard of this guy prior to that cite, but based on his Wiki entry he seems like a serious journalist and not RW oriented.
Nope, keepin up just fine. Thank you for your concern.
So it is just a claim made by a journalist, not a claim that you believe or defend, got it. You are just passing on information with no endorsement.
Then I disagree with him, as he is being affected by conformational bias. I appreciate you neutrally bringing this piece of information into the thread. He claims that there are no mistakes made in the media that are not anti-trump. There are tons of little mistakes all the time. It is only because trump is such a big story that the little mistakes get turned into some sort of conspiracy theory.
Obviously not. Even in this post - the very post in which you make the claim you’re keeping up just fine - you repeatedly say that I brought up the Greenwald claim, when even a cursory look would show that another poster cited it.
No need for thanks, I have no concern. But worth bearing in mind if I seem remiss in responding to your posts.
Sorry, no I did not “repeatedly say that I [you]brought up the Greenwald claim.” I was really just asking whether you were actually defending or endorsing it. With your “We were discussing the fact that the media has had to walk back several supposed bombshell stories recently, all of which were anti-Trump. Question was why this is so.” it certainly did sound like you were defending it.
Though it was not your cite, you are obsessing over it quite a bit.
And my only point was, that that claim (whether or not you believe or endorse it) is incorrect. There are mistakes and retractions all the time in dozens of stories every day, none of which have anything at all to do with trump. It is only when they have to do with trump that they become bombshells, and therefore noticed.
So, do you, or do you not believe that the only mistakes and retractions in any main stream media news stories in recent times have been about Trump? If you do, then you are suffering from confirmational bias along with Greenwald, if not, then what are you talking about?
Whatever. Yeah, I was not caring exactly who cited it in the first place, just your obsession with defending it. My words were only to ask if you were endorsing that position. Something that you are trying very hard to avoid actually answering.
I do apologize for implying that you get credit for the cite though. <—Hey, a retraction.
So, since that is taken care of, I take it that you do not think that there have been any mistakes and retractions in any news stories that did not involve trump in recent times?
Bias is the obvious answer as to why most of the errors are anti-Trump. That doesn’t mean a conspiracy or disingenuous behavior, it just means that all of us lower our guard a bit when we are given information that confirms what we already believe.
Let’s say you are a reporter honestly trying to be accurate, but you think Trump is a lying, predatory idiot. If someone passes along anonymous information showing that Trump is a lying, predatory idiot, you are much more likely to accept it at face value than you would be if you got an anonymous tip that charges against Trump were a set-up by his enemies. Or you might look for verification, and a second anonymous source says the same thing. Good enough.
In the second case, where the information goes against what you already believe, you would likely be instantly skeptical, and since such a story runs counter to everything you think you know about him, you wouldn’t publish it until it was absolutely, incontrovertibly verified. You’d be wary of anonymous sources, since you believe Republicans are perfidious. You would want to make extra sure that you don’t publish incorrect information that helps the child-president, so you’d fact-check the wazoo out of it before you’d ever publish it.
This is how bias works. It seeps into everything - scientific papers, news reports, whatever. It’s no secret that the mainstream media leans to the left and hates Trump, so it should be no surprise that the journalistic errors being made all tend to be on one side.
If you want to assign malice to this and not bias, you can make that case too. Publishing a false but scandalous story makes headlines. The subsequent retraction posted days later gets one tenth of the press coverage. You can count on faithful partisans to repeat the lurid original story on blogs, message boards, and facebook posts, but by the time the retraction runs they’re on to the next lurid story. And besides, they have no interest in posting retractions themselves. That’s how disinformation works.
If what I hear from NYT and WaPo reporters doing appearances on the cable news shows is true, the Trump Administration spend a lot of time feeding them false stories under the table in order to try to trip them up so Trump can tweet screeds about “Fake News”. They catch most of them but every now and then one ( like the reports a few weeks ago that Tillerson was about to be fired.) slips through.
To be fair, their time would be better served covering Trump’s policy than White House intrigue so, even accepting that the Times and Washington Post are better about all of this than most of the others, they still mostly have their heads up their asses.
No, it is not. Clinton turned her server over to the FBI on August 12, 2015. It had all the data deleted before then. A back up of the data was given to the FBI.
Trump made his statement on July 29th, 2016.
There were people telling Trumps team that Russia might have the emails before Trump made his statement. By then anyone paying attention should have known that Russia, and likely every other developed country, had those emails.
What Trump said wasn’t an invitation to hack Clintons emails but rather a joke that they already had and Russia had more access to Clintons emails than the U.S. government did.
The Republicans are at it again, increasingly showing signs of distress and trying a full court press in shutting down the Mueller investigation. Today it’s Rod Rosenstein’s turn in the barrel.