Is the White House trying to hide something?

[Mountain Man]

At a recent press briefing, Sean Spicer sarcastically quipped, "If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that's a Russia connection." So, of course, CNN diligently "fact-checked" Spicer's obvious joke and discovered that Russian salad dressing isn't actually made in Russia. Talk about missing the forest because of the trees.

You can't make this up, folks.

[Sparko]

Derp!

Sounds like a relation of Shunya's. He sometimes misses a sarcastic comment and takes it seriously and starts debating it.

[robrecht]

CNN was not missing the point of Spicer's sarcastic humor. There was no criticism of Spicer implied. They just provided inconsequential trivia for anyone who might be wondering why Russian dressing is called Russian.

[Mountain Man]

CNN was not missing the point of Spicer's sarcastic humor. There was no criticism of Spicer implied. They just provided inconsequential trivia for anyone who might be wondering why Russian dressing is called Russian.

Yes, of course, that must be it.

[Sparko]

CNN was not missing the point of Spicer's sarcastic humor. There was no criticism of Spicer implied. They just provided inconsequential trivia for anyone who might be wondering why Russian dressing is called Russian.

I could by that, if it were put anywhere else except the political section.

[robrecht]

You guys just don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to Trump or CNN. See here:

CNN on Wednesday playfullylighthearted CNN.com story was willing to play along: It looked into the history of Russian dressing and found that it isn't Russian at all but actually was created in New Hampshire in 1924.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/32...g-isnt-russian

[Sparko]

You guys just don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to Trump or CNN. See here:

CNN on Wednesday playfullylighthearted CNN.com story was willing to play along: It looked into the history of Russian dressing and found that it isn't Russian at all but actually was created in New Hampshire in 1924.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/32...g-isnt-russian

riiigght. "playfully" - sure. that's the ticket.

Good save there, The Hill. Good save.

[robrecht]

riiigght. "playfully" - sure. that's the ticket.

Good save there, The Hill. Good save.

If, by saying, 'that's the ticket,' you are trying to imply that I am lying, please provide evidence to support such an implication.

[Sparko]

If, by saying, 'that's the ticket,' you are trying to imply that I am lying, please provide evidence to support such an implication.

no!

I am saying that the Hill is trying to proactively "save" CNN by coming up with a convenient excuse for their actions.

[robrecht]

no!

I am saying that the Hill is trying to proactively "save" CNN by coming up with a convenient excuse for their actions.

I think the Hill and I both read it the same way because it was obvious that CNN was merely playing along.

[rogue06]

You guys just don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to Trump or CNN. See here:

CNN on Wednesday playfullylighthearted CNN.com story was willing to play along: It looked into the history of Russian dressing and found that it isn't Russian at all but actually was created in New Hampshire in 1924.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/32...g-isnt-russian

The Hill may have decided to portray the CNN fact check as being "light-hearted" and being "playful" but there is nothing in the original CNN story -- which was for awhile among the Top Stories in their Politics section (not known for its selections of spoofs) -- even remotely suggesting that it was done in jest. This is hardly the first time the network has seriously "fact checked" something that seems absurd. Several years ago they actually spent four minutes of broadcast time fact checking the jokes in a Saturday Night Live skit which poked fun at Obama (imagine if you can them providing similar scrutiny of SNL jokes about Bush or Sarah Palin).

In case you want to hand wave this off as well Wolf Blitzer soberly rationalized the decision by proclaiming that "Even though SNL deals in comedy, what they said about the President rings true for a lot of you, apparently. So, did the show accurately capture a mood, or did it go off track for comedic effect?"

And wrt to Trump this isn't the first time when the MSM spent time examining something any sane person would consider a ridiculous waste of time in order to go after Trump. One instance that immediately springs to mind is how a couple months ago the AP "fact checked" a Tweet from Trump where he expressed his opinion that Meryl Streep is over-rated.

[Mountain Man]

riiigght. "playfully" - sure. that's the ticket.

Good save there, The Hill. Good save.

It may have been "playful", but their intent was obvious.

[Mountain Man]

And wrt to Trump this isn't the first time when the MSM spent time examining something any sane person would consider a ridiculous waste of time in order to go after Trump. One instance that immediately springs to mind is how a couple months ago the AP "fact checked" a Tweet from Trump where he expressed his opinion that Meryl Streep is over-rated.

Yep, and their "fact check" was basically, "She can't be overrated. Look how highly she is rated!"

[Mountain Man]

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/...s-russia-ties/

[robrecht]

The Hill may have decided to portray the CNN fact check as being "light-hearted" and being "playful" but there is nothing in the original CNN story -- which was for awhile among the Top Stories in their Politics section (not known for its selections of spoofs) -- even remotely suggesting that it was done in jest. This is hardly the first time the network has seriously "fact checked" something that seems absurd. Several years ago they actually spent four minutes of broadcast time fact checking the jokes in a Saturday Night Live skit which poked fun at Obama (imagine if you can them providing similar scrutiny of SNL jokes about Bush or Sarah Palin).

In case you want to hand wave this off as well Wolf Blitzer soberly rationalized the decision by proclaiming that "Even though SNL deals in comedy, what they said about the President rings true for a lot of you, apparently. So, did the show accurately capture a mood, or did it go off track for comedic effect?"

And wrt to Trump this isn't the first time when the MSM spent time examining something any sane person would consider a ridiculous waste of time in order to go after Trump. One instance that immediately springs to mind is how a couple months ago the AP "fact checked" a Tweet from Trump where he expressed his opinion that Meryl Streep is over-rated.

It should be perfectly obvious that it is light-hearted and not to be taken as a serious criticism of Spicer. How could it possibly be intended as a critique? Everyone calls it Russian dressing. They would have to be understood as criticizing Kraft and Wishbone and every other salad-dressing maker in the world, which is, of course, absurd. I am amazed that anyone does not see this as completely obvious.