Ministry of Truth?

[Dill]

(05-25-2022, 09:58 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yes it is. Especially when what you got was the piece that the reporter penned (your link above and below in the text box).

Lol, you do realize that the article that you've linked to IS the article in question, right? This IS the article written based on the information that Mook passed along after Clinton okayed him to do so.

So let me get this straight.....your point is that it was risky for the Clinton campaign to pass this information along to the reporter because the reporter could investigate and find nothing and report nothing, or find no connection to Trump as they had hoped...and you cite the actual article that was published that the MSM ran with and pushed out to its viewers, and that Hillary Clinton TWEETED about as proof? <----Notice the Clinton failed to mention in anyway that the this was still an ongoing investigation and that it was incomplete and therefore hard to evaluate the findings. 

Trump passed all manner of stories on to Hannity, who is NOT an investigative reporter. He does not wait to find if and to what degree stories have been verified, and he often continues to repeat them after they have been debunked. In his world, Saddam still had WMDs and Hillary did give stand down orders during the Benghazi attack. 

The Slate article in question is not the liberal version of Hannity "breaking news," calling people "liars" and pushing rumor, only questioning why the hypocritical "media mob" is "ignoring" the story. Rather Foer's is neutral, descriptive and explanatory, giving the background of cyber monitoring and who does it, and interviewing the scientists who were tracking the anomalous communication between a Russian bank and a Trump-owned server. And Foer solicited and received responses from both Alpha Bank and the Trump org.
 
Foer raises technical questions and lets a variety of respected computer scientists answer them, quoting their words and showing a graph mapping out the anomalies, and especially explaining how they cross check each other. It is clearly meant to pass muster before expert computer scientists in this field. In the final two paragraphs, he places the investigation in the larger context of other emerging Trump campaign connections to Russia, which are also not “made up” stories. That helps people understand why the story is important.
 
But you say this reporter was placing party above journalistic standards. How? Where? Can you quote a line or paragraph which establishes this? Is your standard that any reporting on Trump’s many connections to Russia is its by definition party propaganda?
 
This is a story which SHOULD have been before the public, and if you don't think Foer’s is responsible reporting then it is hard to know what you mean by "responsible," especially if Trump-->Hannity is your term of comparison. It was a story the computer scientists were already trying to publicize without prompting from Hilary, and which the NYT was already researching. Hilary or no, it would have come out.

Your example of how the MSM “ran with” and “pushed” the story is odd. That there was all this anomalous communication between a Trump server and Russian banks in the run up to the election, and that still no one has an explanation for it two years later, is legitimate news, and is hardly to compare with, say, Benghazi level amplification of a Hilary staffer’s mysterious death, listing it with other Clinton "victims." The server communication is a legitimate story. And part of the story is that there isn’t a valid and official explanation.
 
As far as the Clinton tweet, it runs with a point which is already established--there was indeed an active connection between a Trump server and a Russian bank. No "ongoing investigation" about WHETHER that occured, only what it means.  Sullivan, in the Tweet, SPECULATES that this link may reveal something about the mysterious fondness of Trump for Putin. Clearly, that relation has not been established yet. The campaign is APPEALING for further investigation. How is that presenting the investigation as other than "incomplete"? Your complaint seems to be that people are talking about yet another Trump-Putin connection at all.