7 ms·

Is it really that bad? I'm not American so perhaps I missed the decline, I've only noticed them breaking a number of stories recently (previous month for exampl

by d_t_w 9y ago

Is it really that bad? I'm not American so perhaps I missed the decline, I've only noticed them breaking a number of stories recently (previous month for example) that all seem fairly credible, albeit often via anonymous sources. I admit I can't discern the difference between the dozen WAPO or NYT articles I've read in the previous fortnight, for instance.

Volt 9y ago
>Is it really that bad? No.
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
Yes. An example: http://i.imgur.com/dQ4eubw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dQ4eubw.jpg
- foldr 9y ago
  Erm, the Obama administration were offering the information in the expectation of getting something in return, having considered the potential risks involved. Trump just let slip some random bit of classified information, which he did not have Israel's permission to share, because he is a moron.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > Trump just let slip some random bit of classified information What was that information? And according to who?
    - foldr 9y ago
      >What was that information? "Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words. >And according to who? People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Their names? on the record?
        foldr 9y ago
        There are no names on the record for the Obama story either. Why would you expect there to be? Of course people are not going to go on the record talking about the content of private and highly sensitive meetings.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster: "The story that came out tonight is false. I was in the room. It didn’t happen."
        foldr 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/mcmaster-does-not-deny-details-of-trumps-discussion-with-russian-officials/?utm_term=.a647a5cd68f8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/... "McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation, which he said was privileged and confidential." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hr-mcmaster-trump-classified-information-denial-20170515-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-h... "McMaster says that 'at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.' But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them."
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation You don't get rewarded with verified information for publishing fake news. The burden is on the journalist to verify their sources' information. And if they can't, to not publish. The press manufacture loaded questions faster than the administration could answer them - but that's not their job. If you don't agree, then can you first tell everyone why they should listen to you considering you still haven't stopped beating you wife? [0] [0] according to official sources close to foldr. > Officials worried that.. Yet more insidious 'Officials'. So, returning to my original point: who has gone on record to say what Trump said? Presumably no one since anyone in a position to reveal such privileged information would be liable for doing so? So all "well he didn't deny it" double-speak and insinuation, from a press starved of information, and hence resorting to punitive speculation.
  - snomad 9y ago
    Well, good journalism would necessitate including the President Obama facts as background for the Trump piece. It is the same context - US President, Syria, Russians, classified info - less than 1 year earlier. Also, it does change the perception of the story. As someone who has followed the Syrian civil war somewhat closely, I get the sense that the US has repeatedly tried to "cooperate" with Russia on Syria (while putting Ukraine on the back burner). In other words, the US - not a democratic or republican president - has a policy of constructive engagement. That changes the story - it is about cool academic cucumber handling one way, smarmy braggadocio salesman handling it a different way.
    - foldr 9y ago
      There is no parallel between the two cases, so it would not be good journalism to artificially draw one. The problem with what Trump did isn't that he shared classified information, it's that he did so (i) without the permission of the ally from whom the information was obtained [1] and (ii) without properly thinking through the consequences (or most likely even realising that he was doing it). http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrified-israeli-intel-officials-were-shouting-at-us-counterparts-over-trump-leak/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrified-israeli-intel-officia...
- criley2 9y ago
  This is disinformation. Put simply: The US has a process for sharing intelligence whereby the intelligence community runs through a long list of concerns, redacts things that are too secret, protects sources and methods, protects allies and relationships, protects national interests, etc, and makes intelligently informed release decisions based on a mature review process. Donald Trump blurted out Israeli-sourced active-asset-in-the-field top secret code word intelligence WITHOUT following the declassification/sharing protocol precedent, performing analysis, redaction, or doing even the merest hint of due process at all. -- And he did that in a fit of braggadocio, "I have the best sources, the best intel, such as..." He's entitled to do that. To be careless and crass and a braggart with our most trusted and important secrets. But we're entitled to criticize such craven carelessness.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
    >blurted See, even the language is as biased as in the Pravda in its heyday. There are no public logs that show how the discussion advanced, but there is a heavy push by the Leftist media to portray and spin the exchange of information in the light that fits their narrative. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that Trump doesn't want something in return. The two stories are almost identical, but spun in entirely different ways which shows the blatant stench of bias.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by d_t_w 9y ago

Volt 9y ago

>Is it really that bad? No.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago

Yes. An example: http://i.imgur.com/dQ4eubw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dQ4eubw.jpg

foldr 9y ago
Erm, the Obama administration were offering the information in the expectation of getting something in return, having considered the potential risks involved. Trump just let slip some random bit of classified information, which he did not have Israel's permission to share, because he is a moron.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > Trump just let slip some random bit of classified information What was that information? And according to who?
  - foldr 9y ago
    >What was that information? "Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words. >And according to who? People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Their names? on the record?
      - foldr 9y ago
        There are no names on the record for the Obama story either. Why would you expect there to be? Of course people are not going to go on the record talking about the content of private and highly sensitive meetings.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster: "The story that came out tonight is false. I was in the room. It didn’t happen."
        foldr 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/mcmaster-does-not-deny-details-of-trumps-discussion-with-russian-officials/?utm_term=.a647a5cd68f8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/21/... "McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation, which he said was privileged and confidential." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hr-mcmaster-trump-classified-information-denial-20170515-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-h... "McMaster says that 'at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.' But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them."
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation You don't get rewarded with verified information for publishing fake news. The burden is on the journalist to verify their sources' information. And if they can't, to not publish. The press manufacture loaded questions faster than the administration could answer them - but that's not their job. If you don't agree, then can you first tell everyone why they should listen to you considering you still haven't stopped beating you wife? [0] [0] according to official sources close to foldr. > Officials worried that.. Yet more insidious 'Officials'. So, returning to my original point: who has gone on record to say what Trump said? Presumably no one since anyone in a position to reveal such privileged information would be liable for doing so? So all "well he didn't deny it" double-speak and insinuation, from a press starved of information, and hence resorting to punitive speculation.
- snomad 9y ago
  Well, good journalism would necessitate including the President Obama facts as background for the Trump piece. It is the same context - US President, Syria, Russians, classified info - less than 1 year earlier. Also, it does change the perception of the story. As someone who has followed the Syrian civil war somewhat closely, I get the sense that the US has repeatedly tried to "cooperate" with Russia on Syria (while putting Ukraine on the back burner). In other words, the US - not a democratic or republican president - has a policy of constructive engagement. That changes the story - it is about cool academic cucumber handling one way, smarmy braggadocio salesman handling it a different way.
  - foldr 9y ago
    There is no parallel between the two cases, so it would not be good journalism to artificially draw one. The problem with what Trump did isn't that he shared classified information, it's that he did so (i) without the permission of the ally from whom the information was obtained [1] and (ii) without properly thinking through the consequences (or most likely even realising that he was doing it). http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrified-israeli-intel-officials-were-shouting-at-us-counterparts-over-trump-leak/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/horrified-israeli-intel-officia...
criley2 9y ago
This is disinformation. Put simply: The US has a process for sharing intelligence whereby the intelligence community runs through a long list of concerns, redacts things that are too secret, protects sources and methods, protects allies and relationships, protects national interests, etc, and makes intelligently informed release decisions based on a mature review process. Donald Trump blurted out Israeli-sourced active-asset-in-the-field top secret code word intelligence WITHOUT following the declassification/sharing protocol precedent, performing analysis, redaction, or doing even the merest hint of due process at all. -- And he did that in a fit of braggadocio, "I have the best sources, the best intel, such as..." He's entitled to do that. To be careless and crass and a braggart with our most trusted and important secrets. But we're entitled to criticize such craven carelessness.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
  >blurted See, even the language is as biased as in the Pravda in its heyday. There are no public logs that show how the discussion advanced, but there is a heavy push by the Leftist media to portray and spin the exchange of information in the light that fits their narrative. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that Trump doesn't want something in return. The two stories are almost identical, but spun in entirely different ways which shows the blatant stench of bias.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]