Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

[Meh Gerbil]

At what point did quoting people who know nothing become a legitimate source?

[Tassman]

Shunyadragon,
I'm going to guess that this thread isn't getting more replies because CNN isn't really a news source.
See if you can find a source that hasn't already been widely discredited.-Meh Gerbil

As opposed to Alt-Right Breitbart and the media wing of the Trump fascists, i.e. Fox, you mean.

[Tassman]

NYT, Fox, CNN et al reported fake news on WMDs in Iraq. That should be a clue.

There's no "clue" at all. The media merely reported what was said by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. You can't blame the media for quoting them...that's it job.

[robrecht]

There's no "clue" at all. The media merely reported what was said by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. You can't blame the media for quoting them...that's it job.

The US mainstream media should have been more critical of what the administration was saying and implying in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. If I recall correctly, I think the NYT subsequently admitted that they had failed their readers in this regard at the time. Around this time I became aware of and started to gain respect for Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, who had a fledgling nightly show on MSNBC. Despite his well earned reputation for being very conservative (ACU lifetime 94%) and a constant critic of Clinton, he and Pat Buchanen (his regular, almost nightly guest), who was even more conservative, became very vocal in their criticism of what the Bush administration and the way they had approached the run-up to the war and their early execution of it. I look for such honesty in media, people who are not so doctrinaire in their ideological and partisan views that they will be genuinely critical of their own 'side'. Unfortunately, it is rather rare. So much of the media 'news' programming in the US is just paid surrogates for both political parties. Typically, they will have representatives from both sides in an attempt to be, or at least appear to be, fair and impartial, but really good investigative journalism is hard to find these days. David Gergen is a straight-shooter on CNN, but he must be getting pretty old now. I hardly watch CNN any more because of all their surrogates.

[Tassman]

The US mainstream media should have been more critical of what the administration was saying and implying in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. If I recall correctly, I think the NYT subsequently admitted that they had failed their readers in this regard at the time. Around this time I became aware of and started to gain respect for Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, who had a fledgling nightly show on MSNBC. Despite his well earned reputation for being very conservative (ACU lifetime 94%) and a constant critic of Clinton, he and Pat Buchanen (his regular, almost nightly guest), who was even more conservative, became very vocal in their criticism of what the Bush administration and the way they had approached the run-up to the war and their early execution of it. I look for such honesty in media, people who are not so doctrinaire in their ideological and partisan views that they will be genuinely critical of their own 'side'. Unfortunately, it is rather rare. So much of the media 'news' programming in the US is just paid surrogates for both political parties. Typically, they will have representatives from both sides in an attempt to be, or at least appear to be, fair and impartial, but really good investigative journalism is hard to find these days. David Gergen is a straight-shooter on CNN, but he must be getting pretty old now. I hardly watch CNN any more because of all their surrogates.

I agree actually. Gone are the glory days of investigative journalism as per Woodward and Bernstein in the old days. Nevertheless, merely reporting what’s presented doesn’t constitute “fake news” in and of itself. At least CNN has discussion panels which include the likes of Carl Bernstein and David Gergen, both of whom are "straight shooters" as you say. .

[robrecht]

I agree actually. ...

You sound surprised!

Gone are the glory days of investigative journalism as per Woodward and Bernstein in the old days. Nevertheless, merely reporting what’s presented doesn’t constitute “fake news” in and of itself. At least CNN has discussion panels which include the likes of Carl Bernstein and David Gergen, both of whom are "straight shooters" as you say. .

I have a vague impression that Bernstein may have protected his credibility better than Woodward's 'access journalism', but I just can't say much about the various commentators on CNN because I don't watch it hardly at all 'cause I can't stand the panel format with the paid surrogates from both sides. It's easier to look for the occasional surprise concession on Fox or MSNBC.

[Bill the Cat]

In an ongoing investigation of this kind you don't release sources. Let's let the facts come out and see what happens.

How are you to know what's a fact then, if you can't name your sources and you fill your articles with "could" and "might have"?

[robrecht]

Nunes blew the door wide open on that one.

Not sure what you mean: Are you saying that Nunes has now effectively provided sources to confirm as fact Trump's tweeted allegations about Obama improperly orchestrating surveillance of Trump and his campaign? Do you think Nunes exercised good judgment in briefing the press and the president before even discussing his information with even the ranking Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, let alone the rest of the committee investigating the issue? I heard that he apologized to them for that and he admitted he does not know yet if Trump himself had been under surveillance, but rather needs to wait until he sees the documents he's requested from the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Doesn't that harm Nunes' credibility as head of the House intelligence committee and their investigation, which is already a little shaky since he himself was a member of the transition? Scarborough said today he's completely destroyed his reputation as impartial, especially since part of his motivation was because the president was taking a lot of heat in the media. I think Scarborough may have overemphasized that part of Nunes' stated motivation. Maybe Nunes' was only trying to remind Hannity about the fact that this issue has indeed being discussed a lot in the press. Do you think we now need a Select committee, as McCain is now saying?

[Mountain Man]

At what point did quoting people who know nothing become a legitimate source?

That's how the news business has always operated. The idealistic picture of a world weary reporter doggedly pursuing the truth and refusing to go to press until his information is solid is the stuff of Hollywood movies. The only thing news organizations care about is 1) "Does this promote our agenda?"; and 2) "Will it get us sued?" If the answers are yes and no respectively then they run with it. Whether or not the story is true isn't even a consideration.

[Meh Gerbil]

As opposed to Alt-Right Breitbart and the media wing of the Trump fascists, i.e. Fox, you mean.

I put all of them in the same dumpster.
PRO TIP: Save the partisan material for a partisan.

[Tassman]

I put all of them in the same dumpster.
PRO TIP: Save the partisan material for a partisan.

Is there any material that's not partisan? The trick is to sort the spin from the facts and perhaps avoid the more grossly partisan sources such as Breitbart altogether.

[Meh Gerbil]

Is there any material that's not partisan? The trick is to sort the spin from the facts and perhaps avoid the more grossly partisan sources such as Breitbart altogether.

Do you know of a news source that isn't grossly partisan?

[shunyadragon]

Do you know of a news source that isn't grossly partisan?

Your exaggerating. I will actually go with BBC, and the back up is anybody but Bartfart (Breitbart)

[Tassman]

Do you know of a news source that isn't grossly partisan?

Many of the MSM outlets attempt to be impartial. The BBC is govt funded and operates under Royal Charter stipulating it remain independent and above party politics. Australia's ABC and SBS have similar. But most of the news outlets seem to make an attempt at impartiality. CNN goes overboard in this regard by providing a platform for every kook who has an opinion. The least impartial are those like Fox and Breitbart, which promote an ideological agenda.

[Meh Gerbil]

Your exaggerating. I will actually go with BBC, and the back up is anybody but Bartfart (Breitbart)

Thanks for clarifying Breitbart there for me, Shunya.