for historical reference -
(underline added)
“Same question”? What question?
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.
File all of this in the “no shit” file.
The same question I asked the other guy who claimed that the Washington Post was creating fake news.
Oh, okay. So they’re untrustworthy and fake… But you go to them for your information.
What’s missing here?
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.
If a word like “schadenfreude” specific to Americans does not yet exist, I think it’s now necessary to invent one.
So the Russians feared Clinton but considered Trump a useful idiot? That’s just swell.
So how about a list of fake news stories in the Washington Post. Is that just the usual bullshit or can it be backed up with cites?
(post shortened)
The SDMB, of course. 
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 seemed pretty buddy-buddy with Russia back on 3-26-2012.
*Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Russian PM Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”*
I don’t recall a time when the Russians were in fear of Hillary. Are you referring to Billy Clinton? Chelsea?
Why do I get the feeling that the only people who will lose sleep over the views of “experts” expressed by a distraught mainstream media outlet weren’t voting for Trump anyway?
This probably isn’t the best forum to discuss your feelings. I’m sure there’s a great support network available, though.
Because most Trump voters are in their nice, safe little bubble that couldn’t be penetrated with a sledgehammer.
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?
That Obama is not only a Muslim Kenyan, but a Communist Muslim Kenyan. Worst kind.
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.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unfortunately, the cat is already out of the bag: America doesn’t need Putin’s help to sow disinformation. Are fellow Dopers disturbed by the Macedonian teenage trolls who posted lies about Hillary to Facebook *NOT *because they were paid by TrumPutin but just because it was a way to get ad revenue? Here’s a quiz: Try to tell which lie came from the Macedonian trolls and which came from Sean Hannity.
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. 
You conveniently left out a significant part of what Romney said here in order to make your point valid.
I didn’t ask you.
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.
It is an open discussion forum. If you ask a question or make a statement, anyone is permitted to respond.