ISIS Intelligence Cooked?

[Grand Vol]

While none is perfect, the reality is that the MSM are in it for the long haul. Embarrassing episodes of having to retract something or having been misled by unnamed sources damages them over the long term. Right wing bloggers or pretend media are much more short sighted about such things. Their value is getting to the fore of the right wing thinking right now, make some money. Get a mention by Hannity or Carlson or even Trump, to drive traffic to their websites.

Lol

You believed single "unnamed sources" for the entirety of the Russian collusion hoax from CNN, ABC, et al.

Again, thanks to @Rasputin_Vol for bumping this thread.

 

[lawgator1]

CNN was often guilty of running with anonymously sourced stories that they reported as fact, only to later be proven fabricated. They let their hate of Trump ruin what little journalistic credibility they had.

I don't recall that. The most prominent example would be when it was reported that Trump made disparaging remarks about war dead in Europe. No one has shown that reporting to be false. Sure, Trump denied it. But it remains the case that witnesses have contended that he did indeed say it.

So give me an example of CNN quoting unnamed sources and it being proven to have been fabricated. Not claimed to be. Proven to be.

Not saying there aren't such examples, but I think if you watch over the long term you will see that the MSM do strive to corroborate such claims, search for additional sources to confirm, etc., before broadcasting; whereas right wing amateur media hastily throws out there on the net anything it can find, no matter how dubious, because their short term survival depends on getting other similarly minded folks to retweet, reprint, or post to their pages links to the right wing blog initiating it.

 

[lawgator1]

Lol

You believed single "unnamed sources" for the entirety of the Russian collusion hoax from CNN, ABC, et al.

Again, thanks to @Rasputin_Vol for bumping this thread.

Russian interference was no hoax. It has been proven over and over again by the US intelligence services. Heck, it just happened again this past year.

 

[Grand Vol]

Russian interference was no hoax. It has been proven over and over again by the US intelligence services. Heck, it just happened again this past year.

Say with me...

Donald Trump was not guilty of collusion like so called "sources" that you believed reported.

 

[KB5252]

Russian interference was no hoax. It has been proven over and over again by the US intelligence services. Heck, it just happened again this past year.

That's like saying water is going to run downhill. Of course it will. They claimed Trump colluded with Russia. That was the farce. Just like we interfere with and influence elections across the world.

 

[DC_Vol]

I don't recall that. The most prominent example would be when it was reported that Trump made disparaging remarks about war dead in Europe. No one has shown that reporting to be false. Sure, Trump denied it. But it remains the case that witnesses have contended that he did indeed say it.

So give me an example of CNN quoting unnamed sources and it being proven to have been fabricated. Not claimed to be. Proven to be.

Not saying there aren't such examples, but I think if you watch over the long term you will see that the MSM do strive to corroborate such claims, search for additional sources to confirm, etc., before broadcasting; whereas right wing amateur media hastily throws out there on the net anything it can find, no matter how dubious, because their short term survival depends on getting other similarly minded folks to retweet, reprint, or post to their pages links to the right wing blog initiating it.

Whether or not you remember them is irrelevant. They happened. Several times alone with just the Trump / Putin nonsense.

 

[lawgator1]

Say with me...

Donald Trump was not guilty of collusion like so called "sources" that you believed reported.

I guess it depends on what your definition of collusion is, and how express the agreement must be.

Let's just say that it certainly appears that Russia got its money's worth out of him and and their efforts to interfere and leave it at that.

 

[Grand Vol]

I guess it depends on what your definition of collusion is, and how express the agreement must be.

Let's just say that it certainly appears that Russia got its money's worth out of him and and their efforts to interfere and leave it at that.

You still trusted "sources" for the info.

My, how things changed.