WWTBAM Bored

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: Do you still believe it even when you hear Mueller say it was all made up?

First, Mueller did not say it was "all made up."

Mueller spokesman wrote:BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."

Sorry. To non-lawyers, a statement that is not accurate is called a lie. It is a work of fiction, or "made up."

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
First, Mueller did not say it was "all made up."

Sorry. To non-lawyers, a statement that is not accurate is called a lie. It is a work of fiction, or "made up."

No, there's a difference between saying that the description of specific statements in a story was not accurate and saying that the story was "all made up." And most people, even non-lawyers, understand this, although they may choose to characterize it one way.

Mueller is very careful in the words he uses in public pronouncements. This wasn't an off-the-cuff tweet. He certainly could have issued a more blanket statement if he desired.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Sorry. To non-lawyers, a statement that is not accurate is called a lie. It is a work of fiction, or "made up."

No, there's a difference between saying that the description of specific statements in a story was not accurate and saying that the story was "all made up." And most people, even non-lawyers, understand this, although they may choose to characterize it one way.

Mueller is very careful in the words he uses in public pronouncements. This wasn't an off-the-cuff tweet. He certainly could have issued a more blanket statement if he desired.

The point, and once again, you have missed it, aSSShole and bob-tel, is not the accusation or the correction by Mueller. It's the way the News Media presented it.

Buzzfeed decided to publish an anonymous accusation, based on rumors and gossip by presumably 2 people who apparently have high positions in some area that might have had access to information that we don't have. Is it an acceptable standard in journalism today to publish as 'news' the rumors and gossip that goes around Washington solely based on the job titles of the persons that talk to reporters? Do you accept that? Apparently. Well, in that case, you need to accept everything that trump says, because he has the highest position in Washington, and his quotes are not from 'unidentified sources'. -- added> Think about Strzok and Page. They were high-level officials who had access to knowledge we don't have, and they were blatantly biased. Think about any rumor or gossip that has been published against any person you DO like. Is this what journalism has become? I created that post about axios and Rosenstein not because I cared whether Rosenstein was going to be fired or resign. I posted it because it was rumor or gossip or both disguised as 'NEWS'. Same thing about speculation whether Mueller is going to be fired. FAKE NEWS until something real happens.< added--

So Buzzfeed decides to publish the rumors and gossip, and they get a lot of notice. Then all the other 'responsible' news sources make a BIG thing of it. And you guys now think you've got your 'smoking gun'. Your designated saint, Bob Mueller, thinks it is important enough to issue a disclaimer. And all that commotion by your 'responsible' news sources was for nothing. It was 24 hours of blockbuster news based on rumor and gossip. And all the usual suspect pundits weigh in on it and expand and extrapolate on it. And you eat it up. That's called FAKE NEWS. That is what trump is talking about. That is why most of America trusts the MSM less than the president or congress.

There is no victory lap here. There are no winners. Only losers. You can call me a trump supporter, (as if that is some sort of insult or epithet) if you want. I have made my views on trump very clear, which for some reason, you choose to ignore. I post on this in the vague and slim hope that you might get it at long last. trump is a jerk and is irresponsible. The congress is even more of a joke and is even more irresponsible. And the main stream media is out of control, has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism, and is more irresponsible than the rest. None of them are doing the job they are supposed to be doing, and that is a major problem for all of us. And you are their enablers.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Buzzfeed decided to publish an anonymous accusation, based on rumors and gossip by presumably 2 people who apparently have high positions in some area that might have had access to information that we don't have.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Buzzfeed decided to publish an anonymous accusation, based on rumors and gossip by presumably 2 people who apparently have high positions in some area that might have had access to information that we don't have.

I'm glad that you have access to Buzzfeed's sources that the rest of us don't have.

I'm curious on what you base your statement that the mainstream news "has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism, and is more irresponsible than the rest." Do you know what standards CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal (not a liberal publication), and the rest use in vetting their stories now as opposed to what was applied 30 and 40 years ago? Do you know what the accuracy percentage is for the mainstream media now vs. 30 or 40 years ago? Woodward and Bernstein made mistakes that found their way into press and the Nixon administration called them out on them. The difference is that there was no right wing noise machine and tweeter-in-chief repeating those mistakes ad infinitum and labeling them fake news. And Woodward and Bernstein operated under much less time pressure than news organizations do today with 24 hour news cycles and instantly breaking internet stories.

Most of the mainstream news stories have been proven correct, and Buzzfeed has been very accurate in its stories about the Trump Tower. It's true that their chief reporter has a shaky track record due to some personal problems, which is probably why he's working at Buzzfeed instead of the New York Times. But they've had a chance to revisit their sources and they stand by the story.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Buzzfeed's article isn't based on anything Cohen said.

Interesting. It turns out that Mueller says this was not based on anything ANYONE said, except for the sketchy writers. One would have to be an absolute moron to ever pay anything to either of them again.

I'm sure that apologies are forthcoming from those here who believed this, propagated it and then slammed others who questioned it.

If you're referring to me (since you quoted me), I'm not retracting a damn thing. What I said is that flock would refuse to believe eyewitness testimony even if he heard it for himself. Flock admitted that I was right. That essentially means that in his eyes his hypothesis (Donny did nothing wrong) is not falsifiable. And that makes it a religious belief, not something that can be the subject of rational discussion. At least, not with him -- his case of Trump Fanboy Syndrome is incurable.

But I've never really thought otherwise. Flock does, however, make a useful illustration of just how far Donny's apologists are willing to go to refuse to see what's becoming increasingly obvious. And I continue to think that some of the people silently reading these threads are finding the extent of their denial educational and alarming.

And as for the Obama clip, what we have here is a democratic head of state acknowledging that he'll have more freedom to consider compromises that may be politically unpopular after an election than before one. If that surprises anyone at all, it's time to grow up and join the real world. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

aSSShole, I don't have any access to any source that you don't have. And the thing is, you know that. I'm not sure why your posts always have that belittling tone to them, but c'est la vie.

The only things I have that you don't have are common sense and the ability to reason things out for myself. I may be wrong sometimes, but whatever you seem to think, I look at things and facts and decide for myself what I think.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
First, Mueller did not say it was "all made up."

Sorry. To non-lawyers, a statement that is not accurate is called a lie. It is a work of fiction, or "made up."

No, there's a difference between saying that the description of specific statements in a story was not accurate and saying that the story was "all made up." And most people, even non-lawyers, understand this, although they may choose to characterize it one way.

Mueller is very careful in the words he uses in public pronouncements. This wasn't an off-the-cuff tweet. He certainly could have issued a more blanket statement if he desired.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It's amazing how Mueller gained tremendous credibility and integrity with you and all the other Mueller bashers in a matter of minutes once he released that statement.]

Please cite a single instance where I have bashed Muller. I'll wait.

silverscreenselect wrote:No other news organization confirmed the Buzzfeed story, although I'm pretty sure they all checked it out with their own sources. Usually, when one organization breaks a big story, the others can confirm it within hours. And Buzzfeed's story was somewhat thinly sourced for this type of story. Again, a story of this nature usually has more than two sources.

Didn't the story itself mention the past lies and exaggerations by these phonies? They DID confirm that aspect, yet ran with it anyway.

silverscreenselect wrote:You, Flock, and Trump can run your victory laps tonight, but this story is far from over.

I'll do no such thing.

silverscreenselect wrote:So, I take this to mean that you have no idea what sourcing or vetting Buzzfeed had and you just made a guess based on your claimed common sense and ability to reason things out for yourself. Presumably that same common sense and reasoning ability led you to conclude that the media has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism (although you don't know what those standards are or were) and are less accurate than they used to be in the good old days.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:So, I take this to mean that you have no idea what sourcing or vetting Buzzfeed had and you just made a guess based on your claimed common sense and ability to reason things out for yourself. Presumably that same common sense and reasoning ability led you to conclude that the media has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism (although you don't know what those standards are or were) and are less accurate than they used to be in the good old days.

CNN seems to disagree with your assessment. I'll believe them before I believe you when the subject is news coverage.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Mueller Pushback On BuzzFeed Report Is 'Bad Day' For News Media

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:So, I take this to mean that you have no idea what sourcing or vetting Buzzfeed had and you just made a guess based on your claimed common sense and ability to reason things out for yourself. Presumably that same common sense and reasoning ability led you to conclude that the media has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism (although you don't know what those standards are or were) and are less accurate than they used to be in the good old days.

CNN seems to disagree with your assessment. I'll believe them before I believe you when the subject is news coverage.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Mueller Pushback On BuzzFeed Report Is 'Bad Day' For News Media

Nowhere in that article did Toobin or anyone at CNN venture an opinion as to how Buzzfeed sourced and vetted its story. Nowhere did they make a statement that journalistic standards had declined from 30 or 40 years ago or that they are less accurate than they were 40 or 50 years ago.

The only things they said was that this wasn't a good day for journalism, which is pretty obvious to everyone and that these events "reinforce[s] every bad stereotype about the news media,” which also was pretty obvious to everyone.

Bob Juch wrote: We're going to have to wait to see how much BuzzFeed got right. They apparently have some folks who want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein (who, by the way, weren't 100% accurate).

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:So, I take this to mean that you have no idea what sourcing or vetting Buzzfeed had and you just made a guess based on your claimed common sense and ability to reason things out for yourself. Presumably that same common sense and reasoning ability led you to conclude that the media has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism (although you don't know what those standards are or were) and are less accurate than they used to be in the good old days.

CNN seems to disagree with your assessment. I'll believe them before I believe you when the subject is news coverage.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Mueller Pushback On BuzzFeed Report Is 'Bad Day' For News Media

Nowhere in that article did Toobin or anyone at CNN venture an opinion as to how Buzzfeed sourced and vetted its story. Nowhere did they make a statement that journalistic standards had declined from 30 or 40 years ago or that they are less accurate than they were 40 or 50 years ago.

The only things they said was that this wasn't a good day for journalism, which is pretty obvious to everyone and that these events "reinforce[s] every bad stereotype about the news media,” which also was pretty obvious to everyone.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:CNN seems to disagree with your assessment. I'll believe them before I believe you when the subject is news coverage.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: Mueller Pushback On BuzzFeed Report Is 'Bad Day' For News Media

Nowhere in that article did Toobin or anyone at CNN venture an opinion as to how Buzzfeed sourced and vetted its story. Nowhere did they make a statement that journalistic standards had declined from 30 or 40 years ago or that they are less accurate than they were 40 or 50 years ago.

The only things they said was that this wasn't a good day for journalism, which is pretty obvious to everyone and that these events "reinforce[s] every bad stereotype about the news media,” which also was pretty obvious to everyone.

So, Toobin says it wasn't a good day for journalism. Coming from CNN, who are at the forefront of the decline of journalistic standards. Whose legal analyst accuses a successful black man of 'white privilege' based on nothing but her own prejudices. Who, day after day, is blatant with their liberal bias. Who employs and has the back of an incredibly biased reporter named Jim Acosta? And that is OK with you? Of course it is. Because they only report the facts, whereas Faux News only reports things they make up out of thin air.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Nowhere in that article did Toobin or anyone at CNN venture an opinion as to how Buzzfeed sourced and vetted its story. Nowhere did they make a statement that journalistic standards had declined from 30 or 40 years ago or that they are less accurate than they were 40 or 50 years ago.

The only things they said was that this wasn't a good day for journalism, which is pretty obvious to everyone and that these events "reinforce[s] every bad stereotype about the news media,” which also was pretty obvious to everyone.

So, Toobin says it wasn't a good day for journalism. Coming from CNN, who are at the forefront of the decline of journalistic standards. Whose legal analyst accuses a successful black man of 'white privilege' based on nothing but her own prejudices. Who, day after day, is blatant with their liberal bias. Who employs and has the back of an incredibly biased reporter named Jim Acosta? And that is OK with you? Of course it is. Because they only report the facts, whereas Faux News only reports things they make up out of thin air.

I didn't realize you watched CNN all day.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Coming from CNN, who are at the forefront of the decline of journalistic standards.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Coming from CNN, who are at the forefront of the decline of journalistic standards.

And, when given the chance to describe exactly what journalistic standards there are today vs. years ago, you neglected to do so, instead choosing to rely on a couple of anecdotes to back up your claim.

If you'll recall, Richard Nixon was so upset about the "decline of journalistic standards" that he put CBS's Daniel Schorr on his enemies list. And those paragons of journalistic integrity, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, also made a couple of serious mistakes that the Nixon Administration pounced on.

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_new ... arn_fr.php

Your reason for decrying the "decline of journalistic standards," which always seems aimed more at CNN, Buzzfeed, and the New York Times than at Fox News and Breitbart might just be that you don't like what they're reporting, and that the reason so many reports are coming out about incompetence and corruption in the Trump Administration are because the administration is in fact incompetent and corrupt, headed by a man whose penchant for lying is unrivaled in the history of the US Presidency.

The curse of all journalism … is that we think ourselves cleverer than the people for whom we write, whereas, in fact, we are generally even stupider

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

aSSShole, I don't have any access to any source that you don't have. And the thing is, you know that. I'm not sure why your posts always have that belittling tone to them, but c'est la vie.

The only things I have that you don't have are common sense and the ability to reason things out for myself. I may be wrong sometimes, but whatever you seem to think, I look at things and facts and decide for myself what I think.

So, I take this to mean that you have no idea what sourcing or vetting Buzzfeed had and you just made a guess based on your claimed common sense and ability to reason things out for yourself. Presumably that same common sense and reasoning ability led you to conclude that the media has abandoned time-honored standards of journalism (although you don't know what those standards are or were) and are less accurate than they used to be in the good old days.

And for someone who claims all my posts have a belittling tone to them, it's interesting that you preface every one of yours by referring to me as aSSShole. Since I really don't care, I'm presuming that amuses, amazes, or makes you glad.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sure, aSShole.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ar-against
https://www.quora.com/What-has-caused-t ... -standards
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... w-dark-age
https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/stand ... ournalism/

The curse of all journalism … is that we think ourselves cleverer than the people for whom we write, whereas, in fact, we are generally even stupider

.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Sure, aSShole.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ar-against
https://www.quora.com/What-has-caused-t ... -standards
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... w-dark-age
https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/stand ... ournalism/

The curse of all journalism … is that we think ourselves cleverer than the people for whom we write, whereas, in fact, we are generally even stupider

.

Congratulations. You found four articles, none of them responsive to my questions, one dating from 2005 and two (including one from Quora) that referred specifically to online journalists.

I congratulate you on your ability to use google to type in "decline in journalistic standards" or some similar phrase and then cut and paste the first four cites you found.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: That is exactly what I did,aSSShole. And I spent too much time on it.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: That is exactly what I did,aSSShole. And I spent too much time on it.

After all, who needs facts when you have common sense and the ability to reason things out for yourself like you and Donald Trump possess.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's another one, aSSShole, that convincingly demonstrates the decline of journalistic standards. Please research on your own how the story evolved or devolved if you will.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/watch ... e-changer/

Please refrain from your redundant, predictable and obligatory response and it's accompanying swipe at me. I post this just to try and educate you. If it amazes, amuses or makes you glad in some way, I am happy, but I ask you to pleasure yourself in private.