Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about proposed Moscow project

[Bobber]

From your source...

“Mimi Rocah, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney for New York's Southern District, described Corsi's claims as "patently ridiculous."

"This is somebody who doesn't like the fact that he's being caught in his lies," said Rocah, now a Pace University law professor and legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.”

Yeah so what? And how much do you think Trump supporters have any confidence in NBC and THEIR analysts? Why should they when there's not one good thing they say about him from the time he was elected or as they mainstream media is 90% negative on Trump. My point has been made. People who have been brought before Muller claim they have been pressured to lie about Trump or face the consequences.

 

[USincognito]

Like who? Like Jerome Corsi.

"The special counsel and his prosecutorial staff threatened to indict Dr. Corsi, who is now 72 years old, and effectively put him in jail for the rest of his life, unless Dr. Corsi would provide the false testimony that they demanded, even after being informed that the testimony desired would be false," says the 78-page document. "This is criminal."

Corsi files formal complaint against Mueller

I'm sorry, but Corsi is a joke. He was when I listened to him on Coast to Coast AM. It's frankly disturbing that people in power take him seriously.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think they are trying to stall congress from taking action. They didn't say it was false and we know Cohen lied about this because he has already been charged for it.

I thought that was interesting, as well as the fact that BuzzFeed continues to claim the story is true. I have no real faith in BuzzFeed. At the same time, it is an odd statement from the Special Counsel. You would think the fact they felt the need to comment, they would say the claims were false rather than a qualified "not accurate."

 

[Abraxos]

Haven’t seen this level of hysteria since yesterday.

 

[Bobber]

I'm sorry, but Corsi is a joke. He was when I listened to him on Coast to Coast AM. It's frankly disturbing that people in power take him seriously.

Well what then would have been Corsi's motive for claiming the Muller group was trying to get him to lie against the President? If it wasn't true he'd know he'd REALLY then be drawing their wrath down upon him. Why would he do such a thing?

 

[hislegacy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html



Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office on Friday denied an explosive report by BuzzFeed News that his investigators had gathered evidence showing President Trump directed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a prospective business deal in Moscow.

 

[wing2000]

The Special Council's office has now gone on record stating Buzzfeed's article about Cohen being directed to lie by Trump is not accurate.

IMO, the lesson here is not to react to a story that is published by a single source with no collaborating reporting from other organizations.

Unfortunately, we live in media market in which "first to report" has far more priority than "first to report accurately."

Mueller's report will be issued in due time. The wheels of justice have always turned slowly....they seem even slower in today's instant gratification society.

 

[disciple Clint]

IMO, the lesson here is not to react to a story that is published by a single source with no collaborating reporting from other organizations.

Unfortunately, we live in media market in which "first to report" has far more priority than "first to report accurately."

Mueller's report will be issued in due time. The wheels of justice have always turned slowly....they seem even slower in today's instant gratification society.

It goes way beyond that wing2000. There is a total lack of professionalism and responsibility in the media. Every media outlet knew that this report was not verified but they could not resist taking the shot at Trump anyway. The same thing holds true with Trumps political opponents who could not wait to start with the impeachment enthusiasm. Unfortunately we have a vast portion of the public who allow the media to do all their thinking for them and accept all that the media feeds them without questioning it. Look at some of the posts here, how much critical thinking do we see when we read them? I have serious concerns about where our nation is going, fake news is playing right into the hands of the people who would love to destroy our nation and its values.

 

[SimplyMe]

It goes way beyond that wing2000. There is a total lack of professionalism and responsibility in the media. Every media outlet knew that this report was not verified but they could not resist taking the shot at Trump anyway. The same thing holds true with Trumps political opponents who could not wait to start with the impeachment enthusiasm. Unfortunately we have a vast portion of the public who allow the media to do all their thinking for them and accept all that the media feeds them without questioning it. Look at some of the posts here, how much critical thinking do we see when we read them? I have serious concerns about where our nation is going, fake news is playing right into the hands of the people who would love to destroy our nation and its values.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this -- at least among the more mainstream media outlets. While most did report it, most qualified that it was an unverified story being pushed by Buzzfeed. The mainstream media makes mistakes but, for the most part, tends to be pretty decent.

The big issue, to me, is a combination of American's "sound bite" mentality as well as confirmation bias. For the first, most Americans just want the headlines -- and one big issue is that the "headlines" are often sensationalist and not fully supported by the actual story, in an attempt to get people to read the article. We even see that a lot of CF; either someone post a misleading thread title that isn't supported by the article they link; or they look at the article and maybe a few lines, see what they want to see, but a closer reading shows the article doesn't support what they want it to say.

Of course, that leads into the second issue -- confirmation bias. It seems, in some of the better and more neutral articles, some here read it and only "see" the parts of the article that support the things they already believe. The problem is, too many are so emotionally invested in their brand of politics that they filter things by their beliefs -- that is people on both the left and the right.

 

[USincognito]

Well what then would have been Corsi's motive for claiming the Muller group was trying to get him to lie against the President? If it wasn't true he'd know he'd REALLY then be drawing their wrath down upon him. Why would he do such a thing?

Probably his same motivations for claiming that President Obama was a Kenyan born Muslim usurper.
And promoted rumors and innuendo about Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam.
And spread the North American Union conspiracy theory.
And claimed Muslim terrorists with ties to drug dealers and al-Queda supported John McCain.
And claimed that Obama had raised a million dollars for the election campaign of Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga, and had helped run Odinga's campaign as a strategist, (copied from Wikipedia).
etc. etc.

 

[disciple Clint]

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this -- at least among the more mainstream media outlets. While most did report it, most qualified that it was an unverified story being pushed by Buzzfeed. The mainstream media makes mistakes but, for the most part, tends to be pretty decent.

The big issue, to me, is a combination of American's "sound bite" mentality as well as confirmation bias. For the first, most Americans just want the headlines -- and one big issue is that the "headlines" are often sensationalist and not fully supported by the actual story, in an attempt to get people to read the article. We even see that a lot of CF; either someone post a misleading thread title that isn't supported by the article they link; or they look at the article and maybe a few lines, see what they want to see, but a closer reading shows the article doesn't support what they want it to say.

Of course, that leads into the second issue -- confirmation bias. It seems, in some of the better and more neutral articles, some here read it and only "see" the parts of the article that support the things they already believe. The problem is, too many are so emotionally invested in their brand of politics that they filter things by their beliefs -- that is people on both the left and the right.

You have made some valid and insightful points, I would agree with much of what you say. I would have to point out that the main stream media consistently attacks Trump. This is not just my opinion, independent surveys have placed the media coverage at 90% and more negative towards Trump consistently for over two years and counting. I would attribute this to the executive management of the major media outlets encouraging or demanding that their employees bash Trump whenever possible. There is palpable hatred of Trump among the liberal elite of our nation. Trump not only does not share their world view but he is also using his presidency to counter the efforts and accomplishments that the liberal left has made towards changing the values and direction of our nation. The separation between news and opinion in our media, once strictly enforced by media management has all but disappeared. It is almost impossible to get unbiased reporting that is not served with a generous portion of propaganda. Many people who watch TV cannot tell you what the difference is between a news reporter and a political commentator. It was at one time the responsibility of news editors to ensure that stories were properly sourced and verified. Any reporter who tied to get a story published that turned out to be untrue was soon eliminated from the staff. Reporters were professionals who took their responsibilities to the public seriously and did their very best to be factual and unbiased. They worked hard to get their stories and verified their source material. If the media does not clean up their act the public is going to increasingly distrust them and the ability of the free media to act as a watch guard and keep the government in check will disappear. I think the public is starting to realize what is going on and hopefully will demand a return to fair, unbiased, factual, reporting. If we continue down the path we are going on now I am afraid we are going to end up being a socialist country with a media that provides propaganda to support the socialist regime. Interestingly in the past our nation and its media was quick to point out that communist and socialist countries operated in exactly this way. We need to return to being a nation that not only appreciates our fee media but insists that it return to its previous role of protecting our freedoms and values.

 

[SimplyMe]

You have made some valid and insightful points, I would agree with much of what you say. I would have to point out that the main stream media consistently attacks Trump. This is not just my opinion, independent surveys have placed the media coverage at 90% and more negative towards Trump consistently for over two years and counting. I would attribute this to the executive management of the major media outlets encouraging or demanding that their employees bash Trump whenever possible.

I think you are projecting. Yes, the media is largely negative to "Trump." Then again, Trump has constantly reviled and belittled the press, having called them the "enemy of the people" numerous times, particularly if they don't provide "glowing reviews."

The fact is, the press is tough on any president. That is their job, they should be asking the tough questions of those in power -- since "we, the people" aren't in a position to ask the President (as well as the Senate and House leaders) those questions. The issue Trump has, is he takes it as a personal attack. Most President's (such as Bush, who dealt with the same "liberal media") understand what the Press is doing and aren't antagonistic.

There is palpable hatred of Trump among the liberal elite of our nation. Trump not only does not share their world view but he is also using his presidency to counter the efforts and accomplishments that the liberal left has made towards changing the values and direction of our nation. The separation between news and opinion in our media, once strictly enforced by media management has all but disappeared. It is almost impossible to get unbiased reporting that is not served with a generous portion of propaganda.

Yes, the line between news and commentary is blurring. Unfortunately, if you want to lay blame for that, a major finger has to be pointed at Fox News -- they are really the TV channel that started the idea of "news commentary." The other news channels started copying Fox, since Fox got such great ratings -- the issue is, to actual report news is expensive and you only get a small amount of real news in a 24 hour period -- so it is hard to drive ratings if you only report the news, other than in an authentic emergency (times such as 9/11).

Many people who watch TV cannot tell you what the difference is between a news reporter and a political commentator.

And I'd submit that most know the difference, they just don't care. And again, you can't lay this on liberals when studies show that Fox News viewers are almost as poorly informed (and some surveys say worse) than those that watch no news at all.

It was at one time the responsibility of news editors to ensure that stories were properly sourced and verified. Any reporter who tied to get a story published that turned out to be untrue was soon eliminated from the staff. Reporters were professionals who took their responsibilities to the public seriously and did their very best to be factual and unbiased. They worked hard to get their stories and verified their source material.

And, again, as I mentioned above, news does not pay. The 24-hour news channels stared the decline of the newspapers, since then the Internet has all but killed them. The decline of newspapers means less reporters, and the reporters left are typically working for less money (unless they also can be the anchor of a TV news show).

The issue is not that stories are not being sourced and verified, the issue is that these channels and newspapers are increasingly relying on Internet reporting -- "news" coming from non-traditional sources (i.e. not from reporters that studied Journalism). Now, when legitimate news sources (i.e. the "mainstream media") report these stories, they clearly mark them (such as the recent BuzzFeed story) as to the source and that they have not been able to verify the story -- of course (as you point out) the people who are pushing one side or the other tends to ignore the questionable sourcing.

On top of that, as mentioned above, since the 24-hour news channels have switched to "commentary" instead of just news -- particularly panels made up of people from across the political spectrum -- they also want to treat these stories as "truth" -- it isn't that anyone is trying to promote falsehoods but, again, they are looking for ratings and controversy (no matter which side you support) brings in viewers. They tend to look for people who not only look good on camera but that also will be "controversial" enough that it will get people to view in (either because they love or hate them).

Now, if you want to get technical, I'd say much of the issue started when the owners of news organizations started deciding news needed to be "profitable," though that was more news starting to shift on reporting on celebrity (so you could say that is how Trump got his start). But that is a different issue.

If the media does not clean up their act the public is going to increasingly distrust them and the ability of the free media to act as a watch guard and keep the government in check will disappear. I think the public is starting to realize what is going on and hopefully will demand a return to fair, unbiased, factual, reporting. If we continue down the path we are going on now I am afraid we are going to end up being a socialist country with a media that provides propaganda to support the socialist regime. Interestingly in the past our nation and its media was quick to point out that communist and socialist countries operated in exactly this way. We need to return to being a nation that not only appreciates our fee media but insists that it return to its previous role of protecting our freedoms and values.

And this is the problem -- as a general rule the media is not the problem. I hate what has happened to CNN, particularly under Trump, as they used to do a fairly good job of staying in the Center politically, and now, while they still seek a balance, there is some clear "anti-Trump" bias. Again, much of that comes down to not being able to compete with Fox News, so they think being against Trump will give them better ratings. But the news reported by CNN is still factual, it tends to be their commentary that is skewing slightly left -- and they are still closer to the center than either Fox or MSNBC.

The fact is, the news content coming out of the mainstream media is still largely factual -- and if it isn't verified they list the source of the report and mention they can't verify it. There is some issue with the lack of reporters, because of the lack of "profits," but the level of reporting being done is still very good. It still makes sense to listen to a majority of sources, and compare them -- but again, most Americans "don't have time for that," they need to get caught up on what is happening with their favorite "celebrity" (even if just a social media type of celebrity).

And, to take it a step further, the current media is still better than it has been at times in American History (though we are moving that direction) -- the time when much of the media was owned by William Hearst, and through slanted reporting in his paper directly led the US to declare war.

But, no, I don't see the public demanding unbiased reporting -- what we see today is not calls for honest reporting, but rather people wanted the news slanted in their direction (which is why Fox and MSNBC are both doing well now). This is honestly what Trump appears to be pushing for, when literally anything that is negative toward him, despite being true, is "fake news."

 

[disciple Clint]

I think you are projecting. Yes, the media is largely negative to "Trump." Then again, Trump has constantly reviled and belittled the press, having called them the "enemy of the people" numerous times, particularly if they don't provide "glowing reviews."

The fact is, the press is tough on any president. That is their job, they should be asking the tough questions of those in power -- since "we, the people" aren't in a position to ask the President (as well as the Senate and House leaders) those questions. The issue Trump has, is he takes it as a personal attack. Most President's (such as Bush, who dealt with the same "liberal media") understand what the Press is doing and aren't antagonistic.



Yes, the line between news and commentary is blurring. Unfortunately, if you want to lay blame for that, a major finger has to be pointed at Fox News -- they are really the TV channel that started the idea of "news commentary." The other news channels started copying Fox, since Fox got such great ratings -- the issue is, to actual report news is expensive and you only get a small amount of real news in a 24 hour period -- so it is hard to drive ratings if you only report the news, other than in an authentic emergency (times such as 9/11).



And I'd submit that most know the difference, they just don't care. And again, you can't lay this on liberals when studies show that Fox News viewers are almost as poorly informed (and some surveys say worse) than those that watch no news at all.



And, again, as I mentioned above, news does not pay. The 24-hour news channels stared the decline of the newspapers, since then the Internet has all but killed them. The decline of newspapers means less reporters, and the reporters left are typically working for less money (unless they also can be the anchor of a TV news show).

The issue is not that stories are not being sourced and verified, the issue is that these channels and newspapers are increasingly relying on Internet reporting -- "news" coming from non-traditional sources (i.e. not from reporters that studied Journalism). Now, when legitimate news sources (i.e. the "mainstream media") report these stories, they clearly mark them (such as the recent BuzzFeed story) as to the source and that they have not been able to verify the story -- of course (as you point out) the people who are pushing one side or the other tends to ignore the questionable sourcing.

On top of that, as mentioned above, since the 24-hour news channels have switched to "commentary" instead of just news -- particularly panels made up of people from across the political spectrum -- they also want to treat these stories as "truth" -- it isn't that anyone is trying to promote falsehoods but, again, they are looking for ratings and controversy (no matter which side you support) brings in viewers. They tend to look for people who not only look good on camera but that also will be "controversial" enough that it will get people to view in (either because they love or hate them).

Now, if you want to get technical, I'd say much of the issue started when the owners of news organizations started deciding news needed to be "profitable," though that was more news starting to shift on reporting on celebrity (so you could say that is how Trump got his start). But that is a different issue.



And this is the problem -- as a general rule the media is not the problem. I hate what has happened to CNN, particularly under Trump, as they used to do a fairly good job of staying in the Center politically, and now, while they still seek a balance, there is some clear "anti-Trump" bias. Again, much of that comes down to not being able to compete with Fox News, so they think being against Trump will give them better ratings. But the news reported by CNN is still factual, it tends to be their commentary that is skewing slightly left -- and they are still closer to the center than either Fox or MSNBC.

The fact is, the news content coming out of the mainstream media is still largely factual -- and if it isn't verified they list the source of the report and mention they can't verify it. There is some issue with the lack of reporters, because of the lack of "profits," but the level of reporting being done is still very good. It still makes sense to listen to a majority of sources, and compare them -- but again, most Americans "don't have time for that," they need to get caught up on what is happening with their favorite "celebrity" (even if just a social media type of celebrity).

And, to take it a step further, the current media is still better than it has been at times in American History (though we are moving that direction) -- the time when much of the media was owned by William Hearst, and through slanted reporting in his paper directly led the US to declare war.

But, no, I don't see the public demanding unbiased reporting -- what we see today is not calls for honest reporting, but rather people wanted the news slanted in their direction (which is why Fox and MSNBC are both doing well now). This is honestly what Trump appears to be pushing for, when literally anything that is negative toward him, despite being true, is "fake news."

You are attempting to rationalize the issue. You have provided excuses for why the media is not doing the job that they should be doing. I would suggest that instead of running a story and saying that the source is unverified, they should do their job and if they cannot verify the story do not give it exposure just to gain ratings. You previously said that posters on this site use misleading subject lines just to get people to read their posts or to attempt to draw others to a false conclusion. That is exactly what the media is doing much of the time. The media and Trump had a very good relationship prior to the time he became a serious contender to the candidate that was backed by the media. You cannot dispute the independent surveys that show that the media gives Trump 90%+ negative coverage and frequently avoids covering items that would be favorable to Trump. I would also remind you that the press was far less than tough on president Obama. I am not concerned with which news service is the most biased, I am concerned that it has become acceptable that there is anything less than unbiased reporting and that it seems to be acceptable to the general public that this is the case. The fact that one service is biased to one side and another is biased to another side is no comfort and it only serves to divide the nation into an us vs them mentality. Our nation has become the strongest power on earth and the most envied because we are one nation united, there are forces at work to destroy this nation by dividing it. The problem with providing news from unverified sources is simply that people believe what they are told and once they have been told something they fail to follow the story. The damage has been done once the story is released to the public. The fact that it is later found to be false news is not going to change the impression that was made. It is also a fact that retractions when they are provided, and they are often are not, do nothing to erase the false impression that has been made. it is difficult at best to know if the news at CNN is factual because it is almost impossible to separate the news from the commentary. Look at the questions that CNN asks when they do an interview, they are designed to force an anti administration response. There is clear bias and it is not just some, it is 90+%. Fox is just as guilty. To try to justify the bias of CNN by saying that they have to compete with FOX is just an invalid excuse. I do think that the American people have just about had it with both sides on this issue and there will be a call to clean up the industry or there will be a void for real unbiased news that will be filled by some media agency who will then become the driving force when it comes to ratings and profits in the media business. I can only hope.

 

[SimplyMe]

You are attempting to rationalize the issue. You have provided excuses for why the media is not doing the job that they should be doing. I would suggest that instead of running a story and saying that the source is unverified, they should do their job and if they cannot verify the story do not give it exposure just to gain ratings.

No, I'm not rationalizing and the press is doing their job. As for running stories that they can't verify, should no other newspaper have written about Watergate, since only the Washington Post had sources? Should all the other papers been silent?

There is a reason "the media" reports on stories. Perhaps you don't think they should trust the American People, that people should be told and to judge for themselves? Again, if they run a story like that, they give the original source and mention they can't verify it. Personally, I'd rather be informed so I can follow the story, rather than (to go back to Watergate) to allow Nixon and the White House sweep it under the rug (if it is true).

You previously said that posters on this site use misleading subject lines just to get people to read their posts or to attempt to draw others to a false conclusion. That is exactly what the media is doing much of the time. The media and Trump had a very good relationship prior to the time he became a serious contender to the candidate that was backed by the media. You cannot dispute the independent surveys that show that the media gives Trump 90%+ negative coverage and frequently avoids covering items that would be favorable to Trump.

Perhaps Trump shouldn't give them so much negative to report on. To start with, he claimed that he wouldn't be golfing as much as Pres. Obama -- yet he (as of November) has visited his golf courses/clubs 167 times since he became president -- that is roughly 1 out of every 4 days of his presidency. By contrast, Obama played a total of 333 rounds of golf in 8 years. Trump claimed he wouldn't do it, that he'd stay in Washington to work for the people.

About the shutdown, Trump said the blame always sits with the President, as the leader of the country. In December, before shutting down the government, that he'd gladly take the blame. Of course, as soon as the government shut down he started blaming the Democrats. Do you think it was wrong of the press to point out the double standard.

Of course, there are the lies -- so many that the WP Fact Checker created a new category for Trump. Fact Finders show that Trump has lied (from Nov, 2018) over 6400 times in only 640 days in office -- that is roughly 10 lies per day. Do you think the press should not point out when a President lies -- that many lies per day alone could account for a large chunk of the "negative" (yet factual) articles.

And this completely ignores the chaos that seems to come out of this White House, the number of senior White House and Cabinet members that have resigned or been fired; many of them in disgrace.

The fact is, there are some very good reasons that there is so much negative press about Trump that have nothing to do with bias. And that is even ignoring the way Trump has baited the press, which of course is reported (such as the whole issue with Acosta of CNN) and are counted as "negative."

I would also remind you that the press was far less than tough on president Obama. I am not concerned with which news service is the most biased, I am concerned that it has become acceptable that there is anything less than unbiased reporting and that it seems to be acceptable to the general public that this is the case. The fact that one service is biased to one side and another is biased to another side is no comfort and it only serves to divide the nation into an us vs them mentality.

Except the news reporting (at least of most mainstream sources) isn't biased -- it is the commentary/news coverage is biased. Again, are you seriously saying the news needs to be "dumbed down" so that Americans can understand it?

Our nation has become the strongest power on earth and the most envied because we are one nation united, there are forces at work to destroy this nation by dividing it. The problem with providing news from unverified sources is simply that people believe what they are told and once they have been told something they fail to follow the story. The damage has been done once the story is released to the public. The fact that it is later found to be false news is not going to change the impression that was made. It is also a fact that retractions when they are provided, and they are often are not, do nothing to erase the false impression that has been made. it is difficult at best to know if the news at CNN is factual because it is almost impossible to separate the news from the commentary. Look at the questions that CNN asks when they do an interview, they are designed to force an anti administration response. There is clear bias and it is not just some, it is 90+%. Fox is just as guilty. To try to justify the bias of CNN by saying that they have to compete with FOX is just an invalid excuse. I do think that the American people have just about had it with both sides on this issue and there will be a call to clean up the industry or there will be a void for real unbiased news that will be filled by some media agency who will then become the driving force when it comes to ratings and profits in the media business. I can only hope.

I'm curious, did you feel the same way about news from "unverified sources" when Obama was President -- or is it only an issue now that Trump is President?

Now maybe the issue is that you have problem distinguishing news from commentary? If CNN (or anyone else) does an interview, then that is almost always commentary. They are telling the facts from their perspective, and it is the job of the network to get the best "story" from that commentary. Personally, I try not to watch 24-hour news channels unless 1) I want news on a breaking story or 2) I want to actually see one of their panels -- to see how each side is spinning whatever the topic of the day is. I rather miss the old CNN Headline news, back when they did the 30 minutes news programs that were only the news of the day.

It is also why I lament the downturn of newspapers, as they have always been the best way to get the full facts of a story, with more detail than you'll ever get from TV news. And, at least most of the time still, you'll find the commentary on the Editorial pages (and I lament that it is now only "most of the time").

And unfortunately, I don't see a fix for the 24-hour news channels. Again, the owners of those channels want the news division to show a profit -- and they aren't going to make a profit if they only keep repeating the same news over and over (like the old Headline news did) -- they have to have "filler," which is going to be commentary, even if they have to manufacture controversy. Still, the actual news is there and it is typically easy to filter out, you just have to listen critically.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, I'm not rationalizing and the press is doing their job. As for running stories that they can't verify, should no other newspaper have written about Watergate, since only the Washington Post had sources? Should all the other papers been silent?

There is a reason "the media" reports on stories. Perhaps you don't think they should trust the American People, that people should be told and to judge for themselves? Again, if they run a story like that, they give the original source and mention they can't verify it. Personally, I'd rather be informed so I can follow the story, rather than (to go back to Watergate) to allow Nixon and the White House sweep it under the rug (if it is true).



Perhaps Trump shouldn't give them so much negative to report on. To start with, he claimed that he wouldn't be golfing as much as Pres. Obama -- yet he (as of November) has visited his golf courses/clubs 167 times since he became president -- that is roughly 1 out of every 4 days of his presidency. By contrast, Obama played a total of 333 rounds of golf in 8 years. Trump claimed he wouldn't do it, that he'd stay in Washington to work for the people.

About the shutdown, Trump said the blame always sits with the President, as the leader of the country. In December, before shutting down the government, that he'd gladly take the blame. Of course, as soon as the government shut down he started blaming the Democrats. Do you think it was wrong of the press to point out the double standard.

Of course, there are the lies -- so many that the WP Fact Checker created a new category for Trump. Fact Finders show that Trump has lied (from Nov, 2018) over 6400 times in only 640 days in office -- that is roughly 10 lies per day. Do you think the press should not point out when a President lies -- that many lies per day alone could account for a large chunk of the "negative" (yet factual) articles.

And this completely ignores the chaos that seems to come out of this White House, the number of senior White House and Cabinet members that have resigned or been fired; many of them in disgrace.

The fact is, there are some very good reasons that there is so much negative press about Trump that have nothing to do with bias. And that is even ignoring the way Trump has baited the press, which of course is reported (such as the whole issue with Acosta of CNN) and are counted as "negative."



Except the news reporting (at least of most mainstream sources) isn't biased -- it is the commentary/news coverage is biased. Again, are you seriously saying the news needs to be "dumbed down" so that Americans can understand it?



I'm curious, did you feel the same way about news from "unverified sources" when Obama was President -- or is it only an issue now that Trump is President?

Now maybe the issue is that you have problem distinguishing news from commentary? If CNN (or anyone else) does an interview, then that is almost always commentary. They are telling the facts from their perspective, and it is the job of the network to get the best "story" from that commentary. Personally, I try not to watch 24-hour news channels unless 1) I want news on a breaking story or 2) I want to actually see one of their panels -- to see how each side is spinning whatever the topic of the day is. I rather miss the old CNN Headline news, back when they did the 30 minutes news programs that were only the news of the day.

It is also why I lament the downturn of newspapers, as they have always been the best way to get the full facts of a story, with more detail than you'll ever get from TV news. And, at least most of the time still, you'll find the commentary on the Editorial pages (and I lament that it is now only "most of the time").

And unfortunately, I don't see a fix for the 24-hour news channels. Again, the owners of those channels want the news division to show a profit -- and they aren't going to make a profit if they only keep repeating the same news over and over (like the old Headline news did) -- they have to have "filler," which is going to be commentary, even if they have to manufacture controversy. Still, the actual news is there and it is typically easy to filter out, you just have to listen critically.

No, I'm not rationalizing and the press is doing their job.

Seriously, I just do not see it that way. Time will tell.

 

[wing2000]

It goes way beyond that wing2000. There is a total lack of professionalism and responsibility in the media. Every media outlet knew that this report was not verified but they could not resist taking the shot at Trump anyway. The same thing holds true with Trumps political opponents who could not wait to start with the impeachment enthusiasm. Unfortunately we have a vast portion of the public who allow the media to do all their thinking for them and accept all that the media feeds them without questioning it. Look at some of the posts here, how much critical thinking do we see when we read them? I have serious concerns about where our nation is going, fake news is playing right into the hands of the people who would love to destroy our nation and its values.

I share some of your concerns specifically with the public's apparent inability to evaluate information (and that goes across the political spectrum).

 

[wing2000]

Yes, the line between news and commentary is blurring. Unfortunately, if you want to lay blame for that, a major finger has to be pointed at Fox News -- they are really the TV channel that started the idea of "news commentary." The other news channels started copying Fox, since Fox got such great ratings -- the issue is, to actual report news is expensive and you only get a small amount of real news in a 24 hour period -- so it is hard to drive ratings if you only report the news, other than in an authentic emergency (times such as 9/11).

But, no, I don't see the public demanding unbiased reporting -- what we see today is not calls for honest reporting, but rather people wanted the news slanted in their direction (which is why Fox and MSNBC are both doing well now). This is honestly what Trump appears to be pushing for, when literally anything that is negative toward him, despite being true, is "fake news."

...for profit news media is premised on giving consumers what they want to hear.

 

[camille70]

 

[disciple Clint]

This "unbiased reporter" opens his interview with a false premise, Then in spite of being corrected several times he continues to attempt to assert the false premise. Certainly this same "independent reporter" clearly understood the difference between a proposal and a deal when he was negotiating his employment contract. This is one of the elements of False News, asking questions that are actually assertions and leaving the impression in the minds of the public that is not supported by facts. Giuliani is far too good an attorney to let that kind of cheap shot go unchallenged.

 

[cow451]

The Special Council's office has now gone on record stating Buzzfeed's article about Cohen being directed to lie by Trump is not accurate.

It said the article was not accurate but not specific as to what was inaccurate. Until the report is released, we won’t know what specifically was inaccurate.