Did the Media Botch the Russia Story? Vox (yes Vox) maybe starting to "get it"

  • Tue, Apr 2, 2019 10:54 AM

     

     

     

    Too little, too late for the media.  Although hearing a few voices out there calling fouls on themselves is at least something.

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 12:58 PM

    You can definitely file this question under "uhhhhhh, ya think?"

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 2:17 PM
    posted by like_that

    You can definitely file this question under "uhhhhhh, ya think?"

    Or under "more honesty than the reporters had in mind".

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 2:26 PM

    I would lean yes, but with the caveat to say we still not know exactly what is in the report. 

    Also, I split the media into sections: Cable: Yes, botched it. Social: Yes, the libs on twitter failed so far. Print: Yes and no. NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.

     

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 2:35 PM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

     NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.

    LOL....Sean Hannity gets it right once in a while, too.

    I think Zucker said it best, which was "we reported the news as we knew it".  Which is an end around on the facts, that it was ok to source a story or have someone push a deliberately false narrative as long as you, personally, weren't the one saying/writing it.

    Trump wasn't going to serve probably even 2 years.  Collusion was reported as fact, daily.  There is very little of the volumes said and written over the past 2 years that actually holds up to scrutiny.  To claim anyone, WaPo included, was mostly good is a gross exagerattion.

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 4:35 PM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

    I would lean yes, but with the caveat to say we still not know exactly what is in the report. 

    Also, I split the media into sections: Cable: Yes, botched it. Social: Yes, the libs on twitter failed so far. Print: Yes and no. NYT took some tough beats, but the Post had some decent stories that still hold up.

     

    You know this sounds just like the birthers that said “well, we still haven’t seen the LONG FORM of his birth certificate”. 

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 7:34 PM
    posted by jmog

    You know this sounds just like the birthers that said “well, we still haven’t seen the LONG FORM of his birth certificate”. 

    They are lining up to question Mueller's conclusion of no collusion.  Even that is being mischaracterized - some are claiming "there wasn't enough evidence for BEYOND a reasonable doubt".  When, in actuality, the Barr summary specifically says they did not conspire or coordinate despite "multiple offers".  It reads like there's little to no evidence of collusion and not simply falling short of some legal hurdle.  Some of the chuckle heads are prepared to die on the hill of "Don Jr.'s Trump tower meeting and Trump's campaign joke - that's proof enough for me".

    Especially in contrast with the comments on obstruction, for and against, and specifically saying it does not exonerate him on obstruction.  It all adds up to collusion being a big nothingburger.

    Tue, Apr 2, 2019 7:38 PM

    Ptown,

    If there is little to no evidence of collusion, then how do you feel about former Obama staffers making the rounds to spread deliberate lies undermining the legitimacy and competency of a sitting President?  And consider they may have put this all in motion before leaving office.....which, maybe there's your conspiracy and treason.

    Wed, Apr 3, 2019 7:53 AM
    posted by gut

    They are lining up to question Mueller's conclusion of no collusion.  Even that is being mischaracterized - some are claiming "there wasn't enough evidence for BEYOND a reasonable doubt".  When, in actuality, the Barr summary specifically says they did not conspire or coordinate despite "multiple offers".  It reads like there's little to no evidence of collusion and not simply falling short of some legal hurdle.  Some of the chuckle heads are prepared to die on the hill of "Don Jr.'s Trump tower meeting and Trump's campaign joke - that's proof enough for me".

    Especially in contrast with the comments on obstruction, for and against, and specifically saying it does not exonerate him on obstruction.  It all adds up to collusion being a big nothingburger.

     

    posted by gut

    Ptown,

    If there is little to no evidence of collusion, then how do you feel about former Obama staffers making the rounds to spread deliberate lies undermining the legitimacy and competency of a sitting President?  And consider they may have put this all in motion before leaving office.....which, maybe there's your conspiracy and treason.

    On collusion, or did the campaign coordinate with the Russians, I agree, it seems from the letter that the evidence is simply not there. On obstruction, I will wait to see the report before giving the media a full grade. I'll also say it depends on what you mean lies? If you mean someone like John Brennan going around suggesting he knows there is evidence, and there turns out to be none, yeah that is bad. 

    But, your last point I'm not sold on and makes a leap. Just because there could not be specific evidence of collusion does mean automatically mean the Obama administration just made stuff up or conspired/ committed acts of treason. I would have to see the report for that to see if there was any case to say that. Those are serious charges that I'm not sure the country wants to go down that road. 

     

    Wed, Apr 3, 2019 9:13 AM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

     

    Those are serious charges that I'm not sure the country wants to go down that road. 

     

    The country wasn't really ready for accusations of collusion with Russia on a sitting President but guess what? It happened. Serious charges are serious regardless of who throws them out there. 

    I fully understand not liking Trump, so I get it. But even for people like me (don't like him but not filling my pants and slobbering), there seems to be a glaring double standard going on here. 

    Wed, Apr 3, 2019 9:17 AM
    posted by CenterBHSFan

    The country wasn't really ready for accusations of collusion with Russia on a sitting President but guess what? It happened. Serious charges are serious regardless of who throws them out there. 

    I fully understand not liking Trump, so I get it. But even for people like me (don't like him but not filling my pants and slobbering), there seems to be a glaring double standard going on here. 

    Sure, I get that. But, we were doing the same dance at the end of the Bush administration about Iraq, the CIA torture debates , etc. and it was determined to not go back and drudge up those details and debate treason or lies. 

    I'll consider Mueller report pretty much the end of it. It's time to move on to 2020. It also seems like, looking at polls, most of the country agrees and would rather focus on more important issues. 

    Wed, Apr 3, 2019 10:04 AM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

     

    I'll consider Mueller report pretty much the end of it. It's time to move on to 2020. It also seems like, looking at polls, most of the country agrees and would rather focus on more important issues. 

     

    Now there’s the easy way out.  It is hardly time to move on.  It is time to go back and investigate how this REALLY got started, who started it and why, and fully detail the illicit spying, false warrants, corruption and collusion at the FBI and DoJ, abuse of power, and now CYA.  The People of the nation deserve nothing less.

     

    We are just getting started.

    Thu, Apr 4, 2019 12:29 PM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

    On obstruction, I will wait to see the report before giving the media a full grade.

    But how do you obstruct a sham investigation?  This was a DELIBERATE effort to obstruct and undermine a sitting POTUS, by previous administration officials and their media sycophants.  That is true whether the investigation itself had merit and justification, because these people were pushing deliberate lies about evidence and guilt. 

    And that is notably different from Iraq, Iran/Contra, etc because those scandals had to do with how an Adminstration conducted affairs, but in this case you have one political party weaponizing the DOJ and media to go after the other party.

    I'd add that I think the Dossier was critical in making the case for an investigation, it's what connected the dots and suggested there was a lot more smoke than was there.  Comey (or McCabe? Rosenstein?) testified without the dossier there's no FISA warrant....and it's reasonably clear that without the FISA warrants, there's not much of an investigation.  A Dossier, by the way, funded by Clinton and the DNC and basically manufactured by Russian operatives.  Right there staring you in the face is evidence of collusion, perhaps unwitting, that you wanted to accused Trump of.

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 8:08 AM

    Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis, but the political realities just make that impossible to follow through. Who knows without the context of the full report. Also, I think it is a leap to assume that one political party weaponized the DOJ and media without reading the full report. 

    On your last point, I've read differently. Maybe it was one data point, that offered clues, but it did not start or lead to the investigation/ special council. I even think Chris Wallace at Fox made this point last weekend. 

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 8:35 AM
    posted by ptown_trojans_1

    Ehhh, I'm not so sure. You are making conjectures and assumptions without the full report and the proper context. Maybe there was no clear cut deliberate attempt to obstruct or maybe there was just a little basis, but the political realities just make that impossible to follow through. Who knows without the context of the full report. Also, I think it is a leap to assume that one political party weaponized the DOJ and media without reading the full report. 

    On your last point, I've read differently. Maybe it was one data point, that offered clues, but it did not start or lead to the investigation/ special council. I even think Chris Wallace at Fox made this point last weekend. 

    Bottom line, I think you are assuming too much without the full context of the report. 

    Like I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public. 

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 8:40 AM
    posted by jmog

    Like I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public. 

    Seriously? It is not at all the case. Instead of the full report, we have a 4 page summary from a political appointee, where that AG made the recommendation to not move forward on the issue of obstruction. 

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 10:11 AM
    posted by jmog

    Like I said earlier. These are similar arguments to those birthers that talked about what more information was needed to be known from the long form birth certificate rather than the one that was made public. 

    Lol. IDGAF if they release the report or what is in it, but if you really think these are at all comparable you are off your rocker.

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 10:24 AM

    The obstruction stuff in absence of any other crimes is amazingly lame. The left is so desperate that they want to charge the POTUS with covering up something that definitively did not happen. Better use of their time than coming up with a 2020 candidate that isn't a total piece of shit, I suppose.

    Fri, Apr 5, 2019 11:11 AM

    Ptown and Goon are working on full tard.  Unreal how you think that this whole thing isnt a sham.

    Ad