What would it take?

So here’s the headline:

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign

The opening sentence:

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.

The closing sentences:

One concern was whether Trump associates were coordinating with Russian intelligence operatives over the release of damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. "If that were the case, then that would escalate things," one official briefed on the investigation said.

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/donald-trump-aides-russians-campaign/index.html)

So was it "fake news?" No. Not in the sense that the article contained incorrect factual statements. Rather, every fact included is verifiable and the adjectives describing those facts relatively unobjectionable - even if some are reasonably disputable. Further, the article also included Manafort's denial of any contact with Russian officials or "suspected" Russian operatives and a lengthy explanation of the same. So, on its face, it certainly would appear factually correct and fair.

However, deception can be by either commission or omission.

- As to Manafort's denial, never once does the article indicate that Manafort - or anyone for that matter - may not know when they were talking to a suspected Russian operative. In fact, the article never even identifies the "Russian nationals known to US intelligence" as individuals who are suspects that may not even be working for the Russian government. Rather, the only indication that these communications were with "suspected" operatives comes from a quoted Manafort statement. The article's author NEVER adopts, through his own words, this characterization.

- As for the rest, I think the bracketed facts speak for themselves.

Again, to me, the headline chosen, the facts stated, the facts omitted, and the opening and closing sentences are presented in a manner that insinuates a malicious intent on behalf of the staffers while doing so in a manner that is intended to create the impression of a fair representation of the facts. IMHO - a deception of the most invidious nature.

[Oh and by the way, CNN and leakers of classified info ... Thanks! Any actual Russian operatives who spoke with Page, Manafort or Stone during the campaign are now on notice that their cover may have been blown. Pretty sure, Russian counter-intelligence is going to be able to identify those individuals with relative ease since the article - and those who leaked the info - have identified the specific recipients and a relatively tight time frame for the relevant conversations. Great job!]

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

This is the shit that has to stop.After watching the actual press conference and seeing and hearing for myself, he does this shit!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-donald-trump-praises-himself-141957157.html

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?
Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.

Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.

This is a great read .It's response's from Journalist on Trumps attacks.


Journalists react to being called ‘the enemy of the American people’ – Poynter (http://www.poynter.org/2017/journalists-react-to-being-called-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/449456/)

"The media did not make Donald Trump, and they can't destroy him," Limbaugh said. "But the media thinks -- and when I say media, let me define: ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, that cadre -- they have a formula, they have a blueprint for destroying Republican political officials they don't like. It's not going to work on Trump. He doesn't fit that mold. They're trying to everyday. It's kind of comical to watch."

To me this should be sent to Trump and all his advisors.

https://jrbenjamin.com/2015/01/25/teddy-roosevelt-how-to-criticize-the-president/

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

McCain on shutting down press: That's how dictators get started | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320248-mccain-on-attacking-media-thats-how-dictators-get-started)

Since we are talkin bout the corrupt media, any thoughts on bill Maher?

It's entertaining to watch the libs kill him. Always like maher because he understands freedom of speech means freedom of speech...not the pc, liberal censorship going on in this country today. Another reason why trump won.