CNN waves the yellow flag on journalism; embraces tabloid status

[Rion]

http://archive.is/ZxQE0

"Former FBI Director James Comey now believes that President Donald Trump was trying to influence his judgment about the Russia probe, a person familiar with his thinking says, but whether that influence amounts to obstruction of justice remains an open question."

CNN's new method of investigative journalism:

 

[Geralt]

all the fake news has become tabloid, all speculation from limited facts.
all looking for ways to influence people's mind and make a cause to impeach trump.
they are not only fake news, they are sinister news.

 

[JCFantasy23]

"a person familiar with his thinking says" = Yeah, that's not really cutting it as a reliable source. Even kind-of. Technically with that warning they could be asking a person who hasn't even met him but considers themselves an expert on his line of thinking.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

CNN hasn't been straight news for 20 years.

 

[KCfromNC]

"a person familiar with his thinking says" = Yeah, that's not really cutting it as a reliable source. Even kind-of. Technically with that warning they could be asking a person who hasn't even met him but considers themselves an expert on his line of thinking.

Could be. More likely it is a source close to him from the FBI priming the news Comey's upcoming testimony. Guess we'll know in a few weeks. Will the OP be willing to admit he was wrong and CNN's reporting was accurate if that testimony corroborates this story?

 

[Albion]

all the fake news has become tabloid, all speculation from limited facts.
all looking for ways to influence people's mind and make a cause to impeach trump.
they are not only fake news, they are sinister news.

I'm not sure that it even amounts to "limited facts" when a newspaper can print anything it wants and simply attribute it to unnamed sources or White House sources or usually reliable sources, etc.

If any politician made strong accusations like the Washington Post prints routinely, everyone else would be demanding sources, demanding that names be named, etc., and if it wasn't immediately forthcoming, call it disgraceful and fake.

 

[Albion]

"a person familiar with his thinking says" = Yeah, that's not really cutting it as a reliable source. Even kind-of. Technically with that warning they could be asking a person who hasn't even met him but considers themselves an expert on his line of thinking.

But, to be fair, if they actually quoted the guy who was stopped by Jay Leno or Jesse Watters outside the TV studios and asked for an opinion on the day's news, it probably would NOT be as persuasive to viewers.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Could be. More likely it is a source close to him from the FBI priming the news Comey's upcoming testimony. Guess we'll know in a few weeks. Will the OP be willing to admit he was wrong and CNN's reporting was accurate if that testimony corroborates this story?

If they had an accurate source, I would hope they could have eluded to that better in writing, but of course journalism isn't what it once was.

 

[KCfromNC]

Trump going for a Watergate speed-run?

http://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/17/a...disruptiontactic-charges-articles-called.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16—President Nixon's re‐election forces reacted on three fronts today to charges that important Nixon aides had created and sustained a widespread effort to disrupt the Democratic campaign.

At his regular morning briefing, the White House press secretary, Ronald L. Ziegler—appearing more tense and emotional than usual — described the charges as “hearsay, innuendo and guilt by association."

The White House aide said, that Mr. Nixon himself was personally concerned over the [articles], and that his “concern goes to the fact that the stories that are being run are based on hearsay, innuendo, guilt by association.” adding, “He is concerned about the fact that this type of thing is taking place.”

 

[KCfromNC]

If they had an accurate source, I would hope they could have eluded to that better in writing

How? Please be specific.

 

[Rion]

Could be. More likely it is a source close to him from the FBI priming the news Comey's upcoming testimony. Guess we'll know in a few weeks. Will the OP be willing to admit he was wrong and CNN's reporting was accurate if that testimony corroborates this story?

If Comey is incompetent enough to go before congress and confess that he didn't think Trump was attempting to influence the investigation until after he was humiliated and feeling butthurt, I will gladly admit that CNN got something right this time around, but it will have to wait until I catch my breath from laughing so hard.

 

[AllButNone]

"Former FBI Director James Comey now believes that President Donald Trump was trying to influence his judgment about the Russia probe, a person familiar with his thinking says, but whether that influence amounts to obstruction of justice remains an open question."

For all we're aware, the source is Comey himself, in which case what should CNN write? CNN isn't the best reporter of news, but if the source is Comey, then the information would be relevant and accurate.

This is something that will likely be verified or refuted, probably in the near future. If it's refuted, then you can accuse CNN of inaccurate reporting. If it's verified, what then?

 

[AllButNone]

If Comey is incompetent enough to go before congress and confess that he didn't think Trump was attempting to influence the investigation until after he was humiliated and feeling butthurt...

It's called giving a person the benefit of the doubt. You know, so as to not immediately accuse the sitting president of a crime and create an immediate political scandal.

 

[Rion]

For all we're aware, the source is Comey himself, in which case what should CNN write? CNN isn't the best reporter of news, but if the source is Comey, then the information would be relevant and accurate.

This is something that will likely be verified or refuted, probably in the near future. If it's refuted, then you can accuse CNN of inaccurate reporting. If it's verified, what then?

Then say Comey. By writing it this way, it's a joke.

It's called giving a person the benefit of the doubt. You know, so as to not immediately accuse the sitting president of a crime and create an immediate political scandal.

It says he never considered it until he was fired. I'm sure the fact that he was utterly humiliated and made to look like a moron in the process had nothing to do with this sudden realization. /s

 

[Albion]

For all we're aware, the source is Comey himself, in which case what should CNN write? CNN isn't the best reporter of news, but if the source is Comey, then the information would be relevant and accurate.

This is something that will likely be verified or refuted, probably in the near future. If it's refuted, then you can accuse CNN of inaccurate reporting. If it's verified, what then?

Then CNN got lucky.

It doesn't change anything when it comes to the policy of printing news that has no substantiation behind it, though. No one would let a Governor or a corporate executive get away with publicizing, widely, some sensationalist story--but presenting absolutely nothing along with it that might lend it credibility.

We used to make fun of National Enquirer-type tabloid reporting on UFOs landing on the roof of the White House or whatever, but now they back up their stories better than some of the nation's most prominent newspapers.

 

[KCfromNC]

If Comey is incompetent enough to go before congress and confess that he didn't think Trump was attempting to influence the investigation

And if a frog had wings...

Why bring up weird hypothetical situations like this rather than discuss the actual facts here in reality?

 

[KCfromNC]

This is something that will likely be verified or refuted, probably in the near future. If it's refuted, then you can accuse CNN of inaccurate reporting. If it's verified, what then?

We'll get to enjoy post after post about Benghazi trying to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then CNN got lucky.

Of course. No matter how accurate the reporting is, any source posting anything other than praise for Trump must be attacked.

 

[AllButNone]

Then say Comey. By writing it this way, it's a joke.

So your solution to anonymous sources is to get rid of anonymity. Brilliant. Nixon would love you.

It says he never considered it until he was fired. I'm sure the fact that he was utterly humiliated and made to look like a moron in the process had nothing to do with this sudden realization. /s

Saying Comey was humiliated and made to look like a moron is a pretty biased and loaded interpretation of events. It undermines your own credibility on this matter. However, to address the point that Comey is biased by being fired, well... yes he probably is. But it doesn't detract the point that he was no longer willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Quite the contrary, it provides a motive for why he was no longer willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not seeing where it's written, "Comey never considered the possibility". The article seems to suggest the exact opposite.

 

[AllButNone]

We'll get to enjoy post after post about Benghazi trying to distract from the Trump-Russia investigation.

That's so last year. It's all about how Clinton murdered Seth Rich, now.