DiscussMormonism.com

Given past discussions regarding how the press handles topics affecting the FBI, I thought this article may be of interest to some posters here:

https://reason.com/2020/01/16/the-fbi-w ... ot-enough/

The FBI Wants To Treat Carter Page Warrant Mistakes Like Training Problems. A Court Adviser Says That's Not Enough.

The FBI's newly released plans to avoid mistakes when seeking permission to wiretap and surveil American citizens is insufficient, according to an expert brought in to advise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

Thanks, Honor. I was hoping that the IG’s report would result in someone scrutinizing the application process in other cases. I’d be surprised if the problems were limited to the Page applications.

Res Ipsa wrote:Thanks, Honor. I was hoping that the IG’s report would result in someone scrutinizing the application process in other cases. I’d be surprised if the problems were limited to the Page applications.

The background debate is interesting to me, though the details in it are above my paygrade.

I posted this in the interest of tracking the media conversation, too. Mikwut contended that the media is complicit in covering for the FBI and CIA, citing the Steele dossier coverage and the IG report as two intertwined examples that demonstrated the media is largely untrustworthy. One is left to one's biases and hunches to sort out what is going on by reading between the lines and turning to "alternative" news sources. That's a serious contention, but one I'm curious about considering I've viewed the need is one must maintain a diverse media diet that pulls from sources across the spectrum. And that if one pursues a diverse media diet one can, in fact, have a reasonably informed understanding of current events such that a person isn't left to fend for themselves feeding on conspiracy theories and one's own hunches. So, why not test it?

To that point, CNN has yet to pick up the story in the OP. No hits on MSNBC's website for "FBI David Kris" that are relevant to the Trump administration. To find it on Fox News, one has to wade through an article on McCabe describing a critical flaw in the FISA application process:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccabe ... isa-system

Andrew Weissmann, a senior prosecutor with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, was part of the same panel alongside McCabe, and echoed McCabe’s assertion that politics did not play a role, noting that the FBI only has one political appointee in the director, while agents are “apolitical and dedicated.” Mueller's office took over the Russia probe from the FBI soon after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

Weissmann also addressed the proposed FISA reforms put forth by FBI director Christopher Wray, which were deemed “insufficient by David Kris, who was appointed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee the suggested reforms. Kris told the court Wednesday that the FBI’s proposals must be “expanded dramatically.”
Those expansions, according to Kris, should address issues including the “need to improve cooperation between the FBI and DOJ attorneys.”
Indeed, the FISC "should require the FBI and DOJ to document and report on the nature and extent of this communication; such a requirement to document and report communication may encourage the FBI and DOJ to conduct more of it," he said. Every time Wray "visits a field office in 2020," Kris wrote, he should stress the importance of accuracy in FISA applications.

Weissmann agreed with Kris that Wray’s proposals were lacking but said even Kris’ suggestions were not sufficient.

“I think that David is a really great lawyer,” Weissmann said, but added, “I was a little disappointed. I didn’t think it went far enough.”

But as the OP demonstrates, Reason had it front page. While in its infancy, so far this experiment suggests at a minimum a third party source is valuable to have in one's media diet.

Hi Honor:

That's a serious contention, but one I'm curious about considering I've viewed the need is one must maintain a diverse media diet that pulls from sources across the spectrum. And that if one pursues a diverse media diet one can, in fact, have a reasonably informed understanding of current events such that a person isn't left to fend for themselves feeding on conspiracy theories and one's own hunches. So, why not test it?

So, would if the diverse media diet also leads us to conspiracy theories?

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/02/opcw ... is-silent/

mikwut

Both the Times and the Post had stories on it yesterday. I don’t rely on any TV news as a primary news source. I first noticed the story as a headline in the Post, but had forgotten to sit down and read it. (Thus, my thanks for posting the link.)

I’m not sure what you mean by third-party sources of news. My primary source is the Post. But there are a number of other sources that I look at. If it’s a legal topic, I’ll consult the Lawfare blog. To get a more comprehensive view of certain issues, I’ll check the economist. Often, I’ll just google the issue to see who has written on the topic and then read a couple sources. I have no idea which of these are first, second, or third party sources.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media was so obsessed with bitching about the guy selected to advise the court that it buried his criticisms of Wray‘s reform plan. Mark Meadows is falling all over himself trying to fire a guy who appears to agree with him on the issue of FBI reforms.

I have never been thrilled with FISA, and would be happy to see it discontinued.

Hi Res,

Both the Times and the Post had stories on it yesterday.

Would you mind sharing a link because I missed it. Here is my search for "Syria" in the post and I don't see anything:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssear ... =Relevance

Here's my Times search query for Syria, I don't find anything:

https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=syria

Thanks, mikwut

mikwut wrote:Hi Res,

Both the Times and the Post had stories on it yesterday.

Would you mind sharing a link because I missed it. Here is my search for "Syria" in the post and I don't see anything:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssear ... =Relevance

Here's my Times search query for Syria, I don't find anything:

https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=syria

Thanks, mikwut

Sorry, my response was to Honor rather than you.

No prob. Res, Thanks.

Res Ipsa wrote:Both the Times and the Post had stories on it yesterday. I don’t rely on any TV news as a primary news source. I first noticed the story as a headline in the Post, but had forgotten to sit down and read it. (Thus, my thanks for posting the link.)

I’m not sure what you mean by third-party sources of news. My primary source is the Post. But there are a number of other sources that I look at. If it’s a legal topic, I’ll consult the Lawfare blog. To get a more comprehensive view of certain issues, I’ll check the economist. Often, I’ll just google the issue to see who has written on the topic and then read a couple sources. I have no idea which of these are first, second, or third party sources.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media was so obsessed with bitching about the guy selected to advise the court that it buried his criticisms of Wray‘s reform plan. Mark Meadows is falling all over himself trying to fire a guy who appears to agree with him on the issue of FBI reforms.

I have never been thrilled with FISA, and would be happy to see it discontinued.

Hey Res -

I should have made it more clear I was commenting on the mainstream, generally partisan sources as it seemed that was at the heart of the original comment from mikwut. And I guess he has a point there. A person who only consumes CNN or Fox News probably wouldn't be aware of the rebuff the FBI took there. Since his claim was that mainstream media has been effectively serving as the mouthpiece of the FBI and CIA, a claim I found to be quite strong when made, this seems like a chance to source the conversation in real time. Part of my intention with it is to make a case for critical thinking approaches in media consumption, requiring pursuing stories rather than accepting them at face-value and cross-checking them across sources. I appreciate you pointing out a few other major media outlets that were covering it as it helps highlight the editorial decision making involved.

It’s pretty sad that you even have to make a case for critical thinking with respect to media reporting, especially with cable news.