New York Times - Very fake news.

[candycorn]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

Some of the greatest pieces of journalism relied on anonymous sources; Watergate for just one story.

The Democrat glory days and still Carl Bernstein's a raving loon.

Well if you call dethroning a corrupt President "glorious" I guess so. We may get to have another round of glory coming up yet again.

 

[iceberg]

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

Some of the greatest pieces of journalism relied on anonymous sources; Watergate for just one story.

The Democrat glory days and still Carl Bernstein's a raving loon.

Well if you call dethroning a corrupt President "glorious" I guess so. We may get to have another round of glory coming up yet again.

you gonna be ok w/o your RUSSIA binky to hold onto at night?

 

[candycorn]

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

Some of the greatest pieces of journalism relied on anonymous sources; Watergate for just one story.

The Democrat glory days and still Carl Bernstein's a raving loon.

Well if you call dethroning a corrupt President "glorious" I guess so. We may get to have another round of glory coming up yet again.

you gonna be ok w/o your RUSSIA binky to hold onto at night?

Wow, you must be out of Midol

 

[danielpalos]

Trump was correct:



They are not fake news, but very fake news!

Wikileaks helped the right win the election.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans. would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

What I'd do depends on what be in the details. I'm not one to make decisions based on "headlines," which is about what your description of the hypothetical event amounts to.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the other media who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

So the lying dishonorable left are circling the wagons to protect one of their own.

SHOCKER

And Shittingbull ate it up as fact. Too funny

 

[BlindBoo]

How fake is it?

 

[AntonToo]

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false.

...but then they keep turning out correct so what we actually know is that you are full of shit.

 

[Lakhota]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Why does Trump use anonymous and unnamed sources?

 

[iceberg]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans. would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

What I'd do depends on what be in the details. I'm not one to make decisions based on "headlines," which is about what your description of the hypothetical event amounts to.

so - you'll judge me by more or less "headlines"...

got it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans. would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

What I'd do depends on what be in the details. I'm not one to make decisions based on "headlines," which is about what your description of the hypothetical event amounts to.

so - you'll judge me by more or less "headlines"...

got it.

No, why would I judge you by headlines? Hell, I don't think I'm sure even what it means to "judge someone by headlines."

I'm merely noting that the lack of detail you provided makes the situation you described be more akin to a headline than to a full depiction of a matter. Absent a full, or nearly so, set of details about a hypothetical scenario, I'm not able to say how I'd react were it instead extant.

 

[Meathead]

Media has failed as a democratic institution in the USA by abandoning every vestige of journalistic professionalism and ethics since the rise of Trump.

 

[iceberg]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans. would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

What I'd do depends on what be in the details. I'm not one to make decisions based on "headlines," which is about what your description of the hypothetical event amounts to.

so - you'll judge me by more or less "headlines"...

got it.

No, why would I judge you by headlines? Hell, I don't think I'm sure even what it means to "judge someone by headlines."

I'm merely noting that the lack of detail you provided makes the situation you described be more akin to a headline than to a full depiction of a matter. Absent a full, or nearly so, set of details about a hypothetical scenario, I'm not able to say how I'd react were it instead extant.

and the amount of detail you provide makes it painful to get to whatever point you took the extremely long road in getting to.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans. would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

What I'd do depends on what be in the details. I'm not one to make decisions based on "headlines," which is about what your description of the hypothetical event amounts to.

so - you'll judge me by more or less "headlines"...

got it.

No, why would I judge you by headlines? Hell, I don't think I'm sure even what it means to "judge someone by headlines."

I'm merely noting that the lack of detail you provided makes the situation you described be more akin to a headline than to a full depiction of a matter. Absent a full, or nearly so, set of details about a hypothetical scenario, I'm not able to say how I'd react were it instead extant.

and the amount of detail you provide makes it painful to get to whatever point you took the extremely long road in getting to.

Were it my desire to merely air my view(s)/conclusions and observe who concurs or doesn't, I could very briefly write them. But, rhetorically, my aim is to articulate a/several conclusion and present (given that this is an Internet forum and not a scholarly publication, symposium, etc.) a reasonably well substantiated, thus very difficult to rationally refute, case for the soundness of one's, not merely my own, arriving at them.

Opinions are like navels; everyone's got one. I don't care what one's opinions are; I care about the basis for having them. Maybe the structured thought that led to my having mine overlooked or misplaced something. Maybe the same is so of the stance another might have. Neither I nor they can know that is so if all that is presented is the conclusion....thus "war and peace," as you put it.

Aside:

What constitutes "war and peace," as you put it? I think of anything shorter than about twenty or so single spaced 8.5" x 11" pages having one inch margins all around -- or put another way, something that takes no more than 15 to 20 minutes to read -- is downright short. "War and peace" length means I'd need days just to read it, and that's without considering any additional the time it might take to fully comprehend it.

I realize people have myriad things they care to do, but even the busiest people can find 20 free minutes in a day. That said, I don't temporal expectations for when (or whether) people read my posts. If it's longer than one has time "now" to read, fine; read it later, or don't read it. I'm certainly not going to become bothered that one doesn't read and reply to a post I wrote. I realize this is an Internet forum and I have no legitimate basis for expecting people to read my posts. I merely ask that be polite enough that if one doesn't fully read it, that one not remark upon it. Is that asking too much?​

 

[iceberg]

yes. yes it is.

but then i read the first n last sentences only.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the others who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

So they stand behind a fake story?

That's indeed why we call them very fake news. But it's nice to see you backtracking. I didn't know it could happen to such a partisan. The butthurt must be unbearable right at this moment.

Best Cure for a Case of Hillaroids

Snowflakes should be glad to find out that Preparation H advertising is not fake news.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Media have failed as a democratic institution in the USA by abandoning every vestige of journalistic professionalism and ethics since the rise of Trump.

"All the News Fit to Spit": NYTwit Motto

Noosepaper reporters are a huddling clique that has so many learning disabilities in grammar, logic, and history that they've developed a desperate protective need to feel that anyone who doesn't look up to them must be looked down upon. They feel extremely insulted by many of the people who get enthusiastic about Trump, so it's their sheltered echo-chamber snobbery that leads them to take it all out on Trump. They're really ranting at the millions of Americans who don't believe in them anymore. Before discovering that association with Trump, they thought The Donald was an interesting celebrity whom few of them would bother to get all upset about.