dagblog - Comments for "Greenwald on the Russian Coverage"

The reason why people don't

rmrd0000 — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:42:42 +0000

In reply to Greenwald on the Russian Coverage

The reason people don't accept O'Keefe's interview as valid is because everything that he produced before this from ACORN to Planned Parenthood has been debunked. Accepting O'Keefe's video snippets has been followed by the video version presented falling apar

I didn't read the thread

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:31:00 +0000

In reply to Yeah, what the fuck is right.

I didn't read the thread close enough, but still you say:

O'Keefe is not the one making the pertinent comments, he is the one asking the questions. His credibility is of no importance in this case unless he has a chance to edit and alter or spin the content of the answer.

which I find rather horrifying, since we know O'Keefe is happy to set up his questions in a "do you still beat your wife" kind of tilted playing field (or to update to O'Keefe's level of mendacity, "did you ever come clean about axe-murdering your wife?" So no, he doesn't need access to post-edit - anything he touches in any form likely has shit all over it.

As for the referenced Observer piece, the dumbfuck doesn't realize that more and more of the Steele Dossier has been validated over the last 6 months, and it wasn't that the Dossier was ever presented as completely true - it was a compilation of intelligence at various levels of validation that the press had largely sat on for the previous 6 months until Buzzfeed did us all a service by having the balls to get it out there to consider.

It's pretty ballsy of Sainato @ the Observer to reference a Dec 1 story on Russian fake news as "debunked" when a month later the DNI released a declassified report describing exactly that, with more stories & evidence piling up since. Asshole - Sainato published this *yesterday*? Fuck him, and scratch Observer off the trusted list. Fake and dishonest news - 2 sides of the same coin.

Reading a comment and

ocean-kat — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 05:39:03 +0000

In reply to Kat, what "truth" do you see

Reading a comment and responding to the ideas in that comment was never your strength. All I really can do is cut and paste from my comment to see if repetition is a useful technic to reach your brain.

you want to trust some medical reporter about the CNN Russia investigation when he was certainly never in a meeting where the plans and goals were discussed among the reporters working on the story.

In such a large organization I doubt that reporters know much about the inner workings of other divisions. I worked at a large computer company and I knew very little about the inner workings of other parts of the company.

To that I'll add that this medical reporter was based in Atlanta while those working on the Russia story are all based in DC or New York. You act as though CNN is some little mom and pop store where every employee knows each other and they all know the needs and goals rather than a multi-state and multi-country organization where most of the players only know those in their division working on the same projects. It's simplistic interpretation but you've never shown much interest in dealing with complexity.

Oh, this one too just came to

artappraiser — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:46:55 +0000

In reply to My immediate reaction which I

Oh, this one too just came to mind:

Quotes About Pomposity

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

[Preface to Brissot's Address to His Constituents (1794)]”
― Edmund Burke, On Empire, Liberty, and Reform: Speeches and Letters

FWIW, just one person: I

artappraiser — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:43:57 +0000

In reply to That's a good point if you're

FWIW, just one person: I never get an sense of anger from Greenwald's writing, but I often get a sense of calculated arrogance. Which seems to be quite common among those who went to NYU law school as he did, so maybe it's not his fault, just nobless oblige, listen my children to what I say...must admit that the examples I have met in person seem to have no clue about how irritating their manner is...

My immediate reaction which I

artappraiser — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 04:31:24 +0000

In reply to Greenwald on the Russian Coverage

My immediate reaction which I now cannot get out of my mind

8 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

I want to say: thanks to everyone at CNN for doing the brave and honorable thing after a mistake. Pooh on those trying to make some kind of hay of it. Quit the pile on for points for political, monetary, fame or some other gain. Instead proudly say: this is what our profession does when they make a mistake.

Yeah, what the fuck is right.

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:11:30 +0000

In reply to WTF, Lulu? O'Keefe is a

Yeah, what the fuck is right.

I didn't introduce the slimy scumbag O'keefe or his minion to the conversation. I responded to a comment about the tape and said, in affect, that it appears that Bonifield actually intended to say what we heard him say and that even though he was talking to a representative of a scumbag operation, what he actually said appears to be what he actually meant. I am aware that O'Keefe tries to set people up and as a tactic twists the truth and tells lies. In this case there is no reason I have seen to believe that Bonfield said anything in the video that was taken out of context in a way intended to distorted what he meant to say. Apparently CNN management doesn't either.

Here is CNN standing by their man Bonifield. They do not say that he was misquoted or that his answers were edited in a way so as to mislead the viewer as to his real opinions. They do not say that he is not in a position to know what he is talking about. They do not suggest that one of their news dept. producers does not know anything about what management wants or why it wants it. Bonfield's Linkedin page lists his various positions at CNN as: Field producer, CNN Health; Senior producer, CNN Health; Producer, CNN Health; Tape Producer, CNN Health; Associate Producer, CNN Health; Associate Producer, CNN U.S. – Morning and Dayside Programming; CNN Media Coordinator; CNN Feeds Coordinator; and CNN Video Journalist.

Kat, what "truth" do you see

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 02:09:27 +0000

In reply to Oh come one lulu you are

Kat, what "truth" do you see me stretching when I say that a producer in a news dept. of CNN knows something about the news dept. at CNN? Your comment is the ironical ridiculous stretch.

Oh come one lulu you are

ocean-kat — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:01:54 +0000

In reply to The CNN guy is working within

Oh come one lulu you are really stretching the truth here. CNN is a huge organization with many divisions. Contrary to right wing spin it employs conservatives to liberals. This producer was in the medical division. I wouldn't trust the medical reporters to know squat about Russia just as I wouldn't trust the experts on Korea to instruct me on getting regular prostate exams. When I want good information about the middle east I go to Informed Comment to see what Juan Cole has to say. I wouldn't trust him to tell me about heart disease. In such a large organization I doubt that reporters know much about the inner workings of other divisions. I worked at a large computer company and I knew very little about the inner workings of other parts of the company. I'm absolutely certain that no one suggested that in their next report on prostate exams they work in some Trump/Russia angle for the ratings.

The fact is that even brain surgeons, however famous they may be, can hold stupid ideas on fields outside their study. For example Dr Ben Carson believes the Egyptian pyramids stored grain. An ridiculous assertion that no archeologists would agree with. Yet you want to trust some medical reporter about the CNN Russia investigation what he was certainly never in a meeting where the plans and goals were discussed among the reporters working on the story.

WTF, Lulu? O'Keefe is a

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 21:06:00 +0000

In reply to James O'Keefe is a guy with

WTF, Lulu? O'Keefe is a sociopathic liar who tries to set up the enemy from every side. Do I give a fuck whether O'Keefe asked or answered questions? He tried to set up for slander the CNN reporter in a boat a few years back, he slandered ACORN out of existence. It's not whether he asks or answers - he's framing it in the worst way and then will re-edit to make it more slanderous. O'Keefe is a criminal and was convicted for partisan lies, after which he was hired by Trump to commit more partisan atrocities in the name of "new (gotcha) journalism" / dirty tricks and yet you're still going to bring up his rat ass name around here as some kind of reference? Get fucking real.

WaPo:

O’Keefe pleaded guilty in 2010 to unlawfully entering the New Orleans office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) after he and three associates went to the office dressed as telephone workers in an alleged attempt to tamper with the senator’s phones. He received three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service.

Later that year, O’Keefe attempted to lure a CNN correspondent, Abbie Boudreau, onto a boat filled with sex toys in order to film the encounter and “punk” Boudreau, who was reporting a story on conservative filmmakers. Among the props O’Keefe reportedly intended to use were a jar filled with condoms, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs and a blindfold. Boudreau declined the invitation.

In a video “sting” of two Democratic Party organizers last year, Project Veritas operatives posed as political donors to persuade two men to speak to them about purported efforts to provoke violence at Trump’s campaign events. One of the men, Robert Creamer, sued O’Keefe earlier this month, claiming a violation of federal and District laws against unauthorized recording of private conversations.

In perhaps O’Keefe’s most famous project, he and a female associate posed as would-be clients of a community agency called ACORN. The pair sought advice about how to set up a brothel and evade taxes. The resulting video showed ACORN members offering their assistance.

The video triggered a public-relations crisis for ACORN, which subsequently lost its federal funding and went out of operation.

O’Keefe later paid $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by one of the employees seen in the video. Rather than abetting O’Keefe and his partner, the man said he had called the police to report them.