I peruse as many news sources as I possibly can. CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, DNC/MSNBC, google, yahoo, AOL, BBC, radio stations, and, on occasion, actually read newspapers. As you may be aware, many of the television and internet outlets quote newspaper stories so newspapers may actually top my list of news sources.
Way to Justify & Rationalize!
Usually such unwavering support of The Motherfuck Land leads to ‘The Order Lennin’ or possibly a Quisling-Mayorship with your choice of vassals in a newly renamed province or town. /s
This makes no sense. Sure, the Russians should try to do it, but that doesn’t mean Americans should let them or be happy about it. Russia shouldn’t be happy or allow the US to negatively affect them either.
Complete non-sequitur. It’s astonishing how often people put that forward.
But seriously, it’s because they are the only game in town. I’ve chosen to wait 48hrs before believing any version of a major story, especially political stories. I want to see properly verified stories. I want news outlets to provide the Who, What, Why, When, and Where when describing a story. An unnamed source could be a government employee, or the reporter, or the reporter’s cousin. “According to sources” could be the editor, or a cab/Uber driver, or an actual witness. Some reporters may be tripped up by suggesting that a President-elect used their executive power to alter/change the current government when everyone knows that a President-elect has no executive power. Eventually, the story may be broken by hacked emails, or an insider’s whistleblowing, but that might take years.
Obama openly explaining a facet of American politics in existence since 1789 means… what? And, reading the quote and watching the clip, it’s pretty obvious that this follows Obama saying nyet to some proposal, conveniently blaming the elections for his hands being tied… but giving the Russian some hope, keeping them at the discussion table.
Again, what am I missing here? What does this prove?
The Kremlin certainly tries to influence foreign opinion. Here’s an article about it from early 2015. (So does the CIA. Ho-hum.) Given the closeness of the election, it’s rather likely that Fake News — almost all of it favoring Trump — swayed the decision.
I don’t think our foreign enemies much cared whether Obama, McCain or Romney were Potus … but Putin certainly had a dog in this latest fight!
But the thread devolves into “Nanner nanner; your side does it too.” * The Washington Post is just as bad as the Kremlin.* :smack: Our Right-Wing-Apologist-in-Chief has shown up to challenge us for definitions — he needs to know whether a misplaced comma is enough to “prove” Washington Post is in the same ilk as the Kremlin, or if he needs to look for something deeper.
Well, the fact that the president mocked Romney four years ago for positing that the Russians are our adversary, while today so many Democrats are insisting that they’re an existential threat, suggests to me that there is perhaps just the slightest bit of insincere political opportunism around the issue.
An outright lie that has no attributed source which is then picked up and reprinted/broadcast by other news outlets. The recent “CNN plays a half hour of porn in Boston” reported by Fox would be an example.
Major publications can be guilty of uncritically accepting lies and publishing them. (Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Sabrina Erdely, Stephen Glass, Brian Williams, and others successfully got lies past their editors in mainstream publications, but each wrote with a byline that named the author and each was punished (typically by firing) by the medium for which they worked. There will be no “source” for the CNN/porn story and while I have seen a couple of “Oh, it didn’t happen” on Fox news, I have seen no evidence for a source (or even an apology for repeating it), from Fox.