• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are different. Ones factual and the other is as you say... An accusation. :chuckle:

To be honest though, if Russia wasn't changing votes or stuffing ballot boxes (which I don't think anyone is claiming), then what's the difference? They are both trying to persuade a target audience to vote for their canidate of choice through information and misinformation.

Just because one may be considered nefarious doesn't mean their methods are all that different.

Obama wasn't President at the time.

A private citizen can endorse whom they please.
 
Are people actually condoning Russia setting up hacking networks and using propaganda from fake us source to influence US elections as well as operating multiple large scale money laundering operations in the US?
and then equivocating it with a former president publicy under their own name endorsing a foreign candidate?

not only that the Russians covertly provided the FBI with a fake document that influenced the actions of the FBI director until h discovered where the documents were sourced.


its mildly akin to asking a judge to absolve someone's jaywalking ticket because people cross the street at the cross walk all the time... but hey they are crossing the street right?
 
Cnns own producer.

"we are playing you for ratings. We don't have any evidence that he committed a crime. I think him saying you have no proof, this is a witchhunt, is absolutely legitimate. "

Well woops?


https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jq54r/cnns_about_to_be_in_trouble_bigly/

He's a producer for CNN Health.

Who isn't covering Russia and doesn't appear to have a credit to any story involving Russia.

But that's certainly a take on the situation.

Odd that Project Veritas doesn't mention his full title when portraying him as a journalist covering the investigation.
 
PV Journalist: So you believe the russia thing is a little crazy right?

John Bonifield: Even if Russia was trying to swing an election, we try to swing their elections, our CIA is doing shit all the time, we're out there trying to manipulate governments.

John Bonifield: I havn't seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime.

John Bonifield: I know alot of people don't like him and they'd like to see him get kicked out of office.

PV Journalist: That's what it seems like they're pushing.

John Bonifield: But that's alot different than that he actually did something that can get him kicked out of office.

PV Journalist: Then why is CNN constantly like "Russia this, Russia that?"

John Bonifield: Because it's ratings.

PV Journalist: Because it's ratings?

John Bonifield: Our ratings are incredible right now.

PV Journalist: Because of...

John Bonifield: Yeah, so...my boss, I shouldn't say this, my boss yesterday we were having a discussion about this dental shoot and he was like I just want you to know what we're up against here.

John Bonifield: Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords.

John Bonifield: And the CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we're done with it let's get back to Russia.

PV Journalist: The CEO?

John Bonifield: Yeah, so even the climate accords, so it's like okay, a day or so but we're moving back to Russia. PV Journalist: So I understand it's all ratings, right?

John Bonifield: It's a business, people are like the media has an ethical pffffft (dismissive sound).

John Bonifield: But, all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business.

John Bonifield: Especially cable news. Cable news isn't the New York Times, it's not even NBC News. I mean, NBC News still gets 20 million viewers in a night. Cable news is getting a million.

John Bonifield: So, they got to do what they got to do to make their money.

John Bonifield: I think there are a lot of liberal CNN viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized. And I think if we would have behaved that way with President Obama and scrutinized everything that he was doing with as much scrutiny as we applied to Donald Trump, I think our viewers would have been turned off.

John Bonifield: I think they would have felt like we were attacking him, our viewers right now. And i'm not saying all our viewers are super liberals. I think there's just a lot of them. And...

PV Journalist: So Trump is good for business you're saying?

John Bonifield: Trump is good for business right now.

PV Journalist: But honestly, you think the whole Russia shit is just bullshit?

John Bonifield: Could be bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof. Then they say, well there's still an investigation going on. I don't know, if they were finding something we would know about it. The way these leaks happen, they would leak it. They'd leak. If it was something really good, it'd leak.

John Bonifield: I just feel like they don't really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.
 
Man with job unrelated to Russia investigation has not found any evidence.
 
Man with job unrelated to Russia investigation has not found any evidence.

Just replace his name with "anonymous source".

Boom... 100% credible.
 
Just replace his name with "anonymous source".

Boom... 100% credible.

It's not like the guy is 1) unfamiliar with CNN culture, or 2) has no contact with other producers who work on politics.
 
Man with job unrelated to Russia investigation has not found any evidence.
Find me someone who has.

He is the producer at a company whose job is literally only to slam Trump, he hasn't seen any. He explicitly adlknowledges that if there were anything, he would have seen it. And if there were anything good, it would have been leaked.

Come on man, this couldn't be any more black and white. He's admitting theres nothing and that hes playing you guys for ratings, candidly . This may be the only time you should actually trust CNN and the opposite is happening. This is his job and he's saying it looks like a bunch of bullshit, ver batim.
 
Three journalists leaving CNN after retracted article
by Brian Stelter @brianstelterJune 26, 2017: 6:51 PM ET
170626123619-cnn-headquarters-780x439.jpg

Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.
Thomas Frank, who wrote the story in question; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN.


"In the aftermath of the retraction of a story published on CNN.com, CNN has accepted the resignations of the employees involved in the story's publication," a spokesman said Monday evening.

An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published, people briefed on the results of the investigation said.

The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source.

These types of stories are typically reviewed by several departments within CNN -- including fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers -- before publication.

This breakdown in editorial workflow disturbed the CNN executives who learned about it.

In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that "the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is," one of the people briefed on the investigation said.

The reporting about the Russian investment fund and Trump officials was not relayed on CNN's television channels, but it was published on the web and shared on social media.

On Friday, one of the people named in the story, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, disputed Frank's reporting and said, "I did nothing wrong."

Friday night, once it was determined that editorial processes were not followed, CNN deleted the story from CNN.com. Soon thereafter, the story was officially retracted and replaced with an editor's note.

The piece "did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," the note said. "Links to the story have been disabled."

The editor's note also included an apology to Scaramucci.

"CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted," Scaramucci tweeted the next morning. "Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."

The departures of Haris, Lichtblau and Frank are likely to come as a surprise to colleagues, particularly given the reputations of the three men.

Frank worked for USA Today and Newsday for three decades, pursuing investigations and covering the Iraq war as an embedded reporter, before coming to work at CNN.

He was part of an ambitious new investigative unit that was created last winter, bringing together existing teams from within the company and new hires like Lichtblau.

A veteran of The New York Times who won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2006, Lichtblau joined CNN just three months ago.

Haris, who was named the executive editor of CNN Investigates in January, was previously the executive editor of CNNMoney.

"On Friday, CNN retracted a story published by my team. As Executive Editor of that team, I have resigned," Haris said in a statement. "I've been with CNN since 2001, and am sure about one thing: This is a news organization that prizes accuracy and fairness above all else. I am leaving, but will carry those principles wherever I go."
 
It's not like the guy is 1) unfamiliar with CNN culture, or 2) has no contact with other producers who work on politics.

My reply was a joke on the many articles people take as truth that only site anonymous sources.

I 100% agree with you. This guy probably understands the high-level picture of the Russia story better than the footsoldiers doing the reporting. FYI I'm not basing that on intimate knowledge but on analogues to corporate structure.

Branch managers from different departments commonly meet and communicate high-level knowledge of what each department is doing. It's hard to believe CNN and it's producer structure would be different.
 
Just replace his name with "anonymous source".

Boom... 100% credible.

Well, the anonymous sources haven't been proven as not credible.

Portraying this guy as a political journalist, when he's not, is unfair and false.

It's not like the guy is 1) unfamiliar with CNN culture, or 2) has no contact with other producers who work on politics.

Then perhaps it should have been reported as such?

In this piece, the only time his contact with political reporters was even mentioned was a conversation he had with HIS BOSS about what his boss had heard someone else say with regard to their coverage.

So either you're against poor journalism, or you're not.

Which one is it?
 
My reply was a joke on the many articles people take as truth that only site anonymous sources.

I 100% agree with you. This guy probably understands the high-level picture of the Russia story better than the footsoldiers doing the reporting. FYI I'm not basing that on intimate knowledge but on analogues to corporate structure.

Of course not, you're basing it on the fact that what he's saying fits your narrative.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be saying that a guy who works for CNN Health would have direct knowledge of a Russia investigation that he's not reporting on...but hey.

Branch managers from different departments commonly meet and communicate high-level knowledge of what each department is doing. It's hard to believe CNN and it's producer structure would be different.

I guess he left out all his first hand accounts of his dealings with them. Shucks.
 
Well, the anonymous sources haven't been proven as not credible.

Portraying this guy as a political journalist, when he's not, is unfair and false.



Then perhaps it should have been reported as such?

In this piece, the only time his contact with political reporters was even mentioned was a conversation he had with HIS BOSS about what his boss had heard someone else say with regard to their coverage.

So either you're against poor journalism, or you're not.

Which one is it?

I'm against it. Look, in legal terms, this is what we'd call an "admission against interest", which is generally accorded an additional degree of reliability. An incriminating statement coming from a person in a supervisory position. If this guy hadn't said that it was based on something his boss told him, that would be something different.

But if he's quoting someone who was in a position to know, saying something negative about the way things are being done, that's relevant. What's going to be funny about this is to hear how CNN addresses it, because they almost have to. And there's not really any way to do that other than to trash this guy and say he's lying, which sure as hell doesn't add to the overall credibility of the network.

It wouldn't be such a problem if they hadn't just trashed three of their political reporters already for shoddy journalism. There's a stench.

ETA: Just to add, I think this story is less about Trump, and more about CNN.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top