Jump to content
Rebelbacker

#Release The Memo

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Who am I going to go after, Jackmormon? Everybody has a go at him, and he is not on here trying to pretend like he is some white knight crusading for the truth. You're a lot more fun. Besides, I've been on plenty of Russian threads warning the liberals to be careful what they wish for in the Russian investigation. I have my suspicions, sure, but I don't generally agree with anyone who has drawn a conclusion. 

As for the press, you don't have the foggiest idea about it. It's that evil New York Times that has made a formal request for access to the support documents so it can release them to the public, not any politician. But you won't care unless it completely supports what you have been selling. You will say the press is concealing the real truth or is biased. There can never be any end because you'll never be satisfied, unless your narrative is proven.

 

I've worked with the press for 18 years in the financial sector. I've seen how reporters shade stories to fit what narrative they want to provide. So if you want to sell me that reporters are all white knights and they shouldn't be called into question then no, I'm not buying. 

As for the rest of it, we will have to agree to disagree. You're going to think what you want no matter what I say. 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

I've worked with the press for 18 years in the financial sector. I've seen how reporters shade stories to fit what narrative they want to provide. So if you want to sell me that reporters are all white knights and they shouldn't be called into question then no, I'm not buying. 

As for the rest of it, we will have to agree to disagree. You're going to think what you want no matter what I say. 

 

  

My support of journalism is often mischaracterized here, which is fine. I'll answer your strawman. They're not white knights. None of them are. Some are fantastic at what they do, others are terrible, most in between, just like every other profession. I have seen plenty of them all over the years. Despite what people assume about me, I acknowledge that every reporter has a bias (which is different than an institutional bias for one party or another, though they are often conflated). Of course they do. They are human beings. And for that reason, reporters should always be questioned. 

If you really want my take on the state of media I'm happy to offer it. By any definition, I am a media expert. Not just because I was once a reporter, but because knowing how the media works is how I make my living today. I get infuriated with things like the National Correspondents Dinner and other chummy Washington crap. I resent those who trade in access. I think media outlets are increasingly trying to serve up superficial, sensational nonsense because that is what sells to a public that craves it. Newspapers use to be a relative safe harbor from such things, but no longer. In the medium's fight for survival, they can be almost as petty and simplistic as cable news. And I think too many reporters can either be overly aggressive in search of their version of Watergate, and can get themselves into trouble by getting ahead of the facts (exactly what I have been accusing you of doing in this thread), or weaklings who are essentially glorified stenographers.

Still, my view is that as flawed as journalism can be, it is our best defense against "The Swamp" and certainly a better defense than swamp creatures like Donald Trump or Devin Nunes. And while every story should be met with a critical eye, readers should not summarily dismiss news that challenges their own view. And that happens every single day, even with some of the most apparently mundane stories. In my experience, those who are the most sure of media bias are often the most biased among us and lack the proper perspective to make that call. They rarely can tell the difference between facts and opinion. I see this with my clients constantly and find myself in some version of this conversation regularly.

Finally, let me ask you this. If all these reporters are so unfair to you all the time, why do you keep taking their calls? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this thread still going? The collective reaction to “the memo!!!!” seems to be, to quote stormy Daniels, “that’s it?”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I get infuriated with things like the National Correspondents Dinner and other chummy Washington crap. I resent those who trade in access. I think media outlets are increasingly trying to serve up superficial, sensational nonsense because that is what sells to a public that craves it. Newspapers use to be a relative safe harbor from such things, but no longer. In the medium's fight for survival, they can be almost as petty and simplistic as cable news. And I think too many reporters can either be overly aggressive in search of their version of Watergate, and can get themselves into trouble by getting ahead of the facts (exactly what I have been accusing you of doing in this thread), or weaklings who are essentially glorified stenographers.

I agree with this. Well, except the part about me. 

 

22 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Still, my view is that as flawed as journalism can be, it is our best defense against "The Swamp" and certainly a better defense than swamp creatures like Donald Trump or Devin Nunes

I agree as well. Why don't they? 

 

23 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

They rarely can tell the difference between facts and opinion. I see this with my clients constantly and find myself in some version of this conversation regularly.

Isn't that because the two are now intermixed? And isn't that the exact problem with cable news? 

 

24 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Finally, let me ask you this. If all these reporters are so unfair to you all the time, why do you keep taking their calls? 

I never said unfair to me. I said I've seen them shade stories to fit their narrative. But I'll answer your question. Most of the time I answer the call because it is good for business to be recognized in a publication as an expert in the subject matter. However there are a few I won't talk to because I didn't like the way their stories were written that did not reflect reality. And when that has happened I called and talked to their editor about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

I agree with this. Well, except the part about me. 

 

I agree as well. Why don't they? 

They do, but you have to know where to look. You can’t turn on CNN and expect quality journalism. 

 

Isn't that because the two are now intermixed? And isn't that the exact problem with cable news? 

Yes. Cable news is trash. But this isn’t an issue at the NYT, WSJ, etc.

I never said unfair to me. I said I've seen them shade stories to fit their narrative. But I'll answer your question. Most of the time I answer the call because it is good for business to be recognized in a publication as an expert in the subject matter. However there are a few I won't talk to because I didn't like the way their stories were written that did not reflect reality. And when that has happened I called and talked to their editor about it. 

Good. I’ll assume your criticism was fair. That’s how it is supposed to work. Not every journalist is good at their job and sometimes good journalists make mistakes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me see if I have this down....

While they were publicly investigating Hillary, damaging her campaign in the process, the FBI was actually pro-Hillary. This pro-Hillary bias was exhibited by them going after Carter Page in October, someone who was not a part of the Trump campaign, and who the Trump campaign had distanced themselves from. This happened two weeks prior to the election, and it was so secret that the New York Times wrote an article stating that the FBI hadn't found any Russian links to Trump at the end of October. This is done in a secret FISA court, and they request a FISA Title I Order, which required both the Deputy Attorney General and Director of the FBI to show probably cause that Carter Page might be an agent of a foreign power. Meanwhile, they very publicly re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation at almost the exact same time, which did further damage to her campaign. That being said, they were still very obviously pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. 

So... if they had really wanted to bring Trump down, why wouldn't they have.... oh I don't know, "leaked" that they were going after a FISA warrant for Page? Or maybe, I don't know, not leaked information about "new" e-mails on Anthony Weiner's laptop? It just seems like that would have been easier than getting a FISA warrant for someone that was no longer a part of the Trump campaign in an organized attempt to "illegally" bring Trump down. I guess that would make too much sense though. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, retrofade said:

So, let me see if I have this down....

While they were publicly investigating Hillary, damaging her campaign in the process, the FBI was actually pro-Hillary. This pro-Hillary bias was exhibited by them going after Carter Page in October, someone who was not a part of the Trump campaign, and who the Trump campaign had distanced themselves from. This happened two weeks prior to the election, and it was so secret that the New York Times wrote an article stating that the FBI hadn't found any Russian links to Trump at the end of October. This is done in a secret FISA court, and they request a FISA Title I Order, which required both the Deputy Attorney General and Director of the FBI to show probably cause that Carter Page might be an agent of a foreign power. Meanwhile, they very publicly re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation at almost the exact same time, which did further damage to her campaign. That being said, they were still very obviously pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. 

So... if they had really wanted to bring Trump down, why wouldn't they have.... oh I don't know, "leaked" that they were going after a FISA warrant for Page? Or maybe, I don't know, not leaked information about "new" e-mails on Anthony Weiner's laptop? It just seems like that would have been easier than getting a FISA warrant for someone that was no longer a part of the Trump campaign in an organized attempt to "illegally" bring Trump down. I guess that would make too much sense though. 

mcd.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, retrofade said:

So, let me see if I have this down....

While they were publicly investigating Hillary, damaging her campaign in the process, the FBI was actually pro-Hillary. This pro-Hillary bias was exhibited by them going after Carter Page in October, someone who was not a part of the Trump campaign, and who the Trump campaign had distanced themselves from. This happened two weeks prior to the election, and it was so secret that the New York Times wrote an article stating that the FBI hadn't found any Russian links to Trump at the end of October. This is done in a secret FISA court, and they request a FISA Title I Order, which required both the Deputy Attorney General and Director of the FBI to show probably cause that Carter Page might be an agent of a foreign power. Meanwhile, they very publicly re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation at almost the exact same time, which did further damage to her campaign. That being said, they were still very obviously pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. 

So... if they had really wanted to bring Trump down, why wouldn't they have.... oh I don't know, "leaked" that they were going after a FISA warrant for Page? Or maybe, I don't know, not leaked information about "new" e-mails on Anthony Weiner's laptop? It just seems like that would have been easier than getting a FISA warrant for someone that was no longer a part of the Trump campaign in an organized attempt to "illegally" bring Trump down. I guess that would make too much sense though. 

Appearance, perception and reality are hard to grasp sometimes :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AlvinLee said:

The FBI did not damage the HIllary campaign. Hillary's lawlessness and corruption damaged the Hillary campaign. The FBI was part of her damage control effort. Understand now?

 

The FBI didn't force the Trump campaign to have all the contacts with Russian agents, then lie about them every time they got a chance. The FBI kept it a secret until after the election. Understand now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did anyone read the unredacted Grassley letter that was released last night? If not you should. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×