Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-22-2022, 03:53 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Quote:2. Given the dossier's existence and circulation, should any news organization have reported on it?

Responsibly? Yes. 
Responsible is hardly how it was reported on 
  |
  |
  |
 \|/
Quote:

3. When you speak of "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitate it because they hated Trump," I am not sure exactly what you mean and whom you are referring to. These are Hannity-style adjectives and attributions of motivation, not Maddow-style.

 
Are you saying or implying that reporters believed the dossier and reported it as factual finding, as opposed to reporting its existence and provenance, with precautions? "Media" here includes whom or what?

"Precautions" 

Unless you include the 5 second disclaimer @ 6:40, there were absolutely zero "precautions" in this entire off-the-rails and looney conspiracy theory 12 minute and 27 second video of misinformation.

Maddow heavily implies that the Russians are blackmailing Trump, even going as far as to strongly suggest Obamas last second build up of troops to Europe is due directly Trump being compromised. 
Maddow was obsessed with Trump and it's painfully obvious to anyone except her most ardent fans. 

The Rachel video explains that entrapment was long a method of the KGB, whose officers kept their jobs into the new Russian state as members of the FSB. That is not "misinformation." She juxtaposes this knowledge with Trump's surprising pro-Russia behavior, also not misinformation, while reminding us of Trump camp denials and cautioning that nothing has been definitively established. No misinformation there, either. That is NOT reporting the Steele Dossier as a factual finding. 

She raises a question--might kompromat explain Trump's fixation on Putin? That would be way out of line, were it not for the genuine question of Trump's behavior. I don't see any implication Obama's build up is connected to fear of Trump Kompromat and the Steele Dossier, rather, the build up is, if anything, a result of well founded fears that Trump might ease up on Russia (as Flynn promised to do in his secret talks with Lavrov). And these are founded on pre-dossier behavior. The FBI had been investigating Trump for months before Maddow's video, and not because of the Steele Dossier. 

Maddow appears incredibly scandalous and "looney" to you because you do not agree that Trump's decade-long admiration of Putin is a security concern. I don't think you even agree there is something unusual here. Hannity himself, as late as March 11, 2022,  still could not get Trump to condemn Putin, whom he called a "genuis" for the Ukraine invasion.  
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-sean-hannity-putin-evil_n_622abf90e4b0d1329e82b82b


Even if Maddow were "looney" for wondering why Putin favored Trump and Trump Putin, often at risk to Trump's own standing, that would still not be enough to support your picture of an "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up."  NYT and WaPo reporting on Trump and the Steele Dossier seem as sober as ever. Same for the New Yorker and The Atlantic. It was a story which should be reported on.