Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
224
Views

Re: The March of Death by Anonymous Sources

224 Views
Message 11 of 14

NOTICE TO GOPers:

The Whistle Blower is irrelivant because DOZENS of eye witnesses have testified to tRump using his powers as President to EXTORT political favors from foreign Governments.

 

S/he is even more irrelivant because tRump and his chief of Staff have publically CONFESSED to the crime of EXTORTION, admitting the tRump administration CONSTANTLY uses our foreign aid to EXTORT political favors from other countries.

 

While it is TRUE that "ignorance of the law is no defense" it is even more true the fact donny is so abysmally stupid he does not realize he's committed numerous felony crimes is even less of a defense.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
224
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
253
Views

Re: The March of Death by Anonymous Sources

253 Views
Message 12 of 14

@jimc91 wrote:

BY:  Brent Bozell

 

CNN host Jim Sciutto was mocked for tweeting two months ago, “Let’s please ban the word ‘narrative’ from our discussion of the news and this president. There is only one version of the facts and the truth. Full stop.”

 

CNN is about the last stop where you’ll find what Sciutto demands of the news media. Full stop.

Networks such as CNN insist the “truth” as they see it must be anointed as "reality" and anything dissenting from that is “misinformation.” But what they see are conclusions in search of facts and there’s no time or need to establish those facts in pursuit of the narrative that Trump is a crook who must be removed from the presidency.

 

Thus the dominant narrative of the first two years of the Trump presidency was the accusation of Russia colluding with the Trump campaign….until it collapsed. The network evening news shows wasted thousands of minutes just oozing with doom for the president. In 2018, the Russiagate stories were 98 percent negative. Now they’re doing it all over again with Ukraine.

 

All of this is based on what? Evidence provided by whom? How many dozens, maybe hundreds of television and print reports have been based on “anonymous sources”? How many times have we read about the reporter’s conversation with “multiple” or “six” or “more than a dozen” or some such number of sources?

 

Why can’t a single one come forward? Why must we find out, after digging and digging, that their most recent “whistleblower” has vanished from the scene? 

 

As consumers of “news,” it’s exhausting to wade through wild quotes, accompanied by phrases like “the official spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.” But how on Earth would we know if the source was “candid”? The word, after all, is defined as “the quality of being open and honest in expression.” So why not come forward? 

 

On the latest Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace played this swampy game with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. “I talked to a very well-connected Republican in Washington this week, somebody whose name you would know well,” he promised. The source “says that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate, there is now a 20 percent chance he believes ...enough Republicans will vote with the Democrats to remove the president.”

Mulvaney shot back, “Oh, that’s just absurd,” and tried to move on but Wallace resisted and the typical TV back-and-forth ensued.

 

It’s time for Team Trump to get smart about this. Mulvaney let Wallace off the hook. Not only ought he not to have answered the question, but he should instead have put Wallace on the spot.

 

On national television, live national television, on Wallace’s own show, he should have demanded answers to those questions and simply not stopped until the interview was over. 

“Who is that source? You attack CNN all day, but you’re no different.”

 

“How “well-connected” is that source of yours? Employee? Childhood friend? Tennis partner? Can’t you tell your audience that? Do you even know?

 

“How do you know he’s telling the truth? Do you have a second source to confirm this? How do you know he’s not lying, like so many other anti-Trumpers have?”

 

"Why won’t you give us the name of person to whom he’s connected and came up with that 20% number?  Certainly you didn’t talk to him and he didn’t demand anonymity. So who is he? What authority does he have? What’s his expertise?”

 

“Is this the kind of National Enquirer journalism we should now expect from you?”

 

Mulvaney should have pounded, and pounded, and pounded. What could Wallace do about it? Cut him off? That would make national news: Wallace’s refusal to provide any evidence to back up his attack on Trump.

 

Team Trump should not consent to any taped news interviews. Instead, they should be live, and every single time the reporter plays that gotcha game, he should be challenged, fiercely. 

The press would have nowhere to hide. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Well we have really reached this time. This author has no facts but his opinion. He even goes after FOX so you know the far right leaders are getting to the bottom to come up with nonsense to defend Trump. Now how about Trump telling the Kurds who he just killed who knows how many to get to the Syrian Oil fields to guard them as that is where the American troops will be.

Now all think about that. Our troops are now guards for the oil wells of the world. How much is Syria paying to Trump to have him send our troops there. Once again you see Mob Boss Trump using the USA for his own ends. How many of our troops will die on his oil field assignment. Do you think our troops will like being used this way. Private guards for hire from Trump. How can anyone with people they know or love in the service and serving in the middle east support such a depraved policy.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
253
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
235
Views

Re: The March of Death by Anonymous Sources

235 Views
Message 13 of 14

Conservatives will forever be in their bubble because they don't grasp that there is a difference between fact based news and opinions masquerading as news.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
235
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
230
Views
13
Replies

The March of Death by Anonymous Sources

230 Views
Message 14 of 14

BY:  Brent Bozell

 

CNN host Jim Sciutto was mocked for tweeting two months ago, “Let’s please ban the word ‘narrative’ from our discussion of the news and this president. There is only one version of the facts and the truth. Full stop.”

 

CNN is about the last stop where you’ll find what Sciutto demands of the news media. Full stop.

Networks such as CNN insist the “truth” as they see it must be anointed as "reality" and anything dissenting from that is “misinformation.” But what they see are conclusions in search of facts and there’s no time or need to establish those facts in pursuit of the narrative that Trump is a crook who must be removed from the presidency.

 

Thus the dominant narrative of the first two years of the Trump presidency was the accusation of Russia colluding with the Trump campaign….until it collapsed. The network evening news shows wasted thousands of minutes just oozing with doom for the president. In 2018, the Russiagate stories were 98 percent negative. Now they’re doing it all over again with Ukraine.

 

All of this is based on what? Evidence provided by whom? How many dozens, maybe hundreds of television and print reports have been based on “anonymous sources”? How many times have we read about the reporter’s conversation with “multiple” or “six” or “more than a dozen” or some such number of sources?

 

Why can’t a single one come forward? Why must we find out, after digging and digging, that their most recent “whistleblower” has vanished from the scene? 

 

As consumers of “news,” it’s exhausting to wade through wild quotes, accompanied by phrases like “the official spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.” But how on Earth would we know if the source was “candid”? The word, after all, is defined as “the quality of being open and honest in expression.” So why not come forward? 

 

On the latest Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace played this swampy game with acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. “I talked to a very well-connected Republican in Washington this week, somebody whose name you would know well,” he promised. The source “says that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate, there is now a 20 percent chance he believes ...enough Republicans will vote with the Democrats to remove the president.”

Mulvaney shot back, “Oh, that’s just absurd,” and tried to move on but Wallace resisted and the typical TV back-and-forth ensued.

 

It’s time for Team Trump to get smart about this. Mulvaney let Wallace off the hook. Not only ought he not to have answered the question, but he should instead have put Wallace on the spot.

 

On national television, live national television, on Wallace’s own show, he should have demanded answers to those questions and simply not stopped until the interview was over. 

“Who is that source? You attack CNN all day, but you’re no different.”

 

“How “well-connected” is that source of yours? Employee? Childhood friend? Tennis partner? Can’t you tell your audience that? Do you even know?

 

“How do you know he’s telling the truth? Do you have a second source to confirm this? How do you know he’s not lying, like so many other anti-Trumpers have?”

 

"Why won’t you give us the name of person to whom he’s connected and came up with that 20% number?  Certainly you didn’t talk to him and he didn’t demand anonymity. So who is he? What authority does he have? What’s his expertise?”

 

“Is this the kind of National Enquirer journalism we should now expect from you?”

 

Mulvaney should have pounded, and pounded, and pounded. What could Wallace do about it? Cut him off? That would make national news: Wallace’s refusal to provide any evidence to back up his attack on Trump.

 

Team Trump should not consent to any taped news interviews. Instead, they should be live, and every single time the reporter plays that gotcha game, he should be challenged, fiercely. 

The press would have nowhere to hide. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
230
Views
13
Replies