EAllusion wrote:The Washington Post is contradicing the CNN report on the second story by dating the email to 9/14 instead of 9/4. That's a notable difference since the public release was 9/13. Have to wait and see how that detail shakes out.
It looks like the Washington Post is going to come out right on this one (put another one on the scoreboard for them, if you aren't subscribed yet you probably should be). Unfortunately this gives all the Trump supporters even more reason to ignore anything CNN reports on. I suspect more than just CNN will get caught in the "fake news" counter as well
CNN's breathless promotion of "Breaking News" 24/7 is an invitation to sloppiness. Getting confirmation on the stories they break is, in my opinion, a good practice.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:CNN's breathless promotion of "Breaking News" 24/7 is an invitation to sloppiness. Getting confirmation on the stories they break is, in my opinion, a good practice.
I hope that source that was leaking this information to them took them out to dinner first because that informant just royally screwed their credibility.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
Res Ipsa wrote:CNN's breathless promotion of "Breaking News" 24/7 is an invitation to sloppiness. Getting confirmation on the stories they break is, in my opinion, a good practice.
I hope that source that was leaking this information to them took them out to dinner first because that informant just royally screwed their credibility.
CNN has published a correction, which is what media outlets should do when they err.
Washington (CNN)Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.
Candidate Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and others in the Trump Organization received an email in September 2016 offering a decryption key and website address for hacked WikiLeaks documents, according to an email provided to congressional investigators.
The September 14 email was sent during the final stretch of the 2016 presidential race.
CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.
[bold in original]
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote: CNN has published a correction, which is what media outlets should do when they err.
You're right, of course. And we don't expect outlets to be flawless. Given how damning that particular detail was I just wish they had erred a bit more on the side of caution.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
Fake news is talking about Hillary Clinton running a sex operation from the basement of a pizzaria that doesn't have a basement. Or claiming "bombshell" news about someone "forging" something that she didn't forge. You know, the kind of stupid crap you see at FOX.
Much like the ABC flub, if the initial report was accurate the story is catastrophic. Without it, it's still a bad story. There is an unfortunate side effect of this that moving from catastrophic to bad might cause some people to downplay what's still a bad development.
The first story is still the case and is more in that "catastrophic" range.
CNN, at this moment, still has the fake news article on it's main page. Reading this thread what I'm starting to realize is these political discussions aren't actually discussions. There is no desire to seek truth. It's just opposing fans in a stadium yelling at each other. You guys don't care that this was a fake story. Or that CNN is still using it, even with the so-called "correction" to make Trump look bad. It's points on a scoreboard to you. You like how the ref called the play, you apologetically defend your team.
The story, as corrected, is dishonest. A random fanboy emailed Trump Jr. a link to the public wikileaks dump some 12 hours after they made it public. So what? This is like writing a article about any one of us receiving suspicious communications from a certain Nigerian prince discussing money transfers. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. One, for believing this fake news to begin with, and two, defending it the way you are as if CNN has somehow behaved in an honorable way.
Fake news refers to deliberately manufactured fictitious news meant to promote an agenda. The term was made famous by the copious amounts of it spread through Facebook in an effort to elect Donald Trump. As quickly as the term became famous it became coopted by enemies of the free press, i.e. the current American regime, to discredit legitimate news. It is not "news I dislike" or "news that is mistaken."
EAllusion wrote:Much like the ABC flub, if the initial report was accurate the story is catastrophic. Without it, it's still a bad story. There is an unfortunate side effect of this that moving from catastrophic to bad might cause some people to downplay what's still a bad development.
The first story is still the case and is more in that "catastrophic" range.
I follow on the first story and maybe I am just dense but I don't see how that email from the second story is a problem at all if it was sent to post Wikileaks release. What am I missing?
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
EAllusion wrote:Much like the ABC flub, if the initial report was accurate the story is catastrophic. Without it, it's still a bad story. There is an unfortunate side effect of this that moving from catastrophic to bad might cause some people to downplay what's still a bad development.
The first story is still the case and is more in that "catastrophic" range.
I follow on the first story and maybe I am just dense but I don't see how that email from the second story is a problem at all if it was sent to post Wikileaks release. What am I missing?
It's bad in a way that we're accustomed to since there's a ton of corroborating evidence already, but some corners deny. It's a piece of evidence indicating the hacks were intended to help elect Donald Trump and, depending on how you interpret denials surrounding reading the email, possibly showing corporation with that effort. There's already ample evidence of that though, including public comments during the campaign, so it's nothing new. The old can still be bad, though. It's like finding a private conversation where Donald Trump expresses hope that Clinton will be hacked by Russia. That's bad, but we already know he did that on live TV.
